• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: What is the Bigger Threat? Global Warming or Global Warming Legislation

    Yesterday the White House released a report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, finding that “[c]limate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.” Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) told The Hill, “The findings released today add urgency to the growing momentum in Congress for legislation that cuts global warming pollution.” Do they really? Is there any evidence in the report that global warming legislation will prevent any of the changes the report identifies? Is there any evidence in the report that the costs of global warming legislation will be offset by its benefits? No and no.

    The Obama administration climate report identifies a number of impacts from global warming including “increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level”; “increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes”; and increased “heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents.” These are all bad. But how bad? The report does not put a price tag on any of these maladies. But the report does identify some benefits from global warming including “thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons”, and “earlier snowmelt.” As Manhattan Institute senior fellow Jim Manzi has noted, the U.S. should not expect any net economic damage from global warming before 2100. So the net threat for the United States from global warming over the next 90 years is essentially zero.

    Now, how about the threat from global warming legislation? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the leading global warming legislation in Congress, the Waxman-Markey bill, would cause a typical U.S. household to consume about $160 less per year than it otherwise would, and about $1,100 less per year by 2050. But the EPA study is wildly unrealistic. First, the EPA assumes a doubling of nuclear power by 2035. But nothing in Waxman-Markey changes the regulatory framework that has strangled the U.S. nuclear industry for the past 30 years. Second, it assumes that all revenue collected by the federal government from Waxman-Markey will be immediately returned to taxpayers through rebates or lowered taxes. This is a nice sentiment, but it does not reflect the reality of what is actually in the Waxman-Markey bill. Finally, it assumes that large numbers of foreign offsets will be available for purchase; without these, costs would be far higher.

    The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis has conducted a much more realistic cost estimate for Waxman-Markey and found that by 2035, global warming legislation would inflict real GDP losses of $9.4 trillion, raise an average family’s annual energy bill by $1,241, and destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average.

    The American people should not allow the federal government to get away with incomplete reports designed to scare them into action. The American people deserve real cost-benefit analysis of global warming legislation that clearly lays out the net economic consequences of action and inaction. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States is not that study.

    Quick Hits:

    .

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    61 Responses to Morning Bell: What is the Bigger Threat? Global Warming or Global Warming Legislation

    1. Ozzy6900, CT says:

      A screaming politician and a bunch of so called scientists that are unable to come to a conclusion (only an consensus) have twisted a natural phenomena into a delusional extreme that have ensnared the weak minded, uneducated population of the World into thinking that Man can actually cause or control the Earth's climate! But it is because of those weak minded, uneducated people, the Governments of the World are going to push us all into a virtual hole citing that "We are the cause of the Earth's problems". They will tax us, regulate us, fine us and jail us for not complying with their Mandates. And in the end, the Earth will laugh as she swings Her climate through its paces, just as She has done for millions of years – ALL BY HERSELF!

    2. jjay - Louisville, K says:

      What is the Bigger Threat? Global Warming or Global Warming Legislation?

      Perhaps it is your editors. Why not release your need to constantly find criticism to spread and instead find solutions to suggest.

      And Ozzy, you are probably right to some degree. Mother Earth does have her swings. However, you do not offer answers either, merely criticism of those in charge who are at least trying to deal with some very real issues.

      Let's get it together and leave off the fighting for 'top dog' positions which is getting us nowhere, maybe even bassakward and fast.

    3. mulberry VA says:

      To Ozzy6900,Ct

      Your last sentence says it all.

      Why is no one listening?

    4. David Sayers, NC says:

      Clearly, the biggest threat to America is Obama and his gang. All the fruitcakes have bought into Algore's nonsense and we are about to pay a very large price in contrast to Gore and the rest of the thugs laughing all the way to the bank. The arrogance of these egomaniacs to think that mere mortals can change the makeup of the planet is beyond

      belief. We have to get rid of these morons,the sooner the better.

    5. John franklin, wisco says:

      Global warming is the psychic hotline of today. I think Cleo was 10 bucks a minute at the top of her game. Todays Cleo is Al Gore and the rest of the psychic hotline gang Biden, Pelosi, Harry, and Barack to name a few.

      Who would of thought, that Cleo was actually reasonably priced, compared to these snake oil sales man. Unfortunately, the poor will be hit the hardest with this psychic legislation.

      Just ask Cleo!

    6. MAS1916 - Denver, CO says:

      Another huge threat is the flow of information ( or disinformaton ) regarding global warming and other problems.

      The media is in Obama's pocket! Even the SF Chronicle thinks so! And with the health care disaster staring us in the face, ABC has given a free hour for the Obama infomercial!.

      Global warming hasn't been given proper public discussion because the media simply parrots back what the left tells them.

      http://firstconservative.com/blog

    7. Richard Baynes, Lond says:

      What global warming??? It was 40 degrees this morning in southern New Hampshire…June 17th!!! I have yet to see a study that gives good evidence of global warming…it is all cyclical. Politicians need to stop getting their noses into all these areas that they are not qualified in, period.

    8. Liz B. Fairfax, VA says:

      Well, considering that humans have virtually no impact on global warming, I'd say the legislation is pointless and potentially harmful. I'll be happy to forward a scientific article with over 130 resources to anyone who wants it. eslmama@yahoo.com

    9. Aaron Huertas says:

      As someone who has actually read the entire assessment, I can say that this post grossly misrepresents the federal climate report's findings. Most climate change legislation opponents have given up on science denial and misrepresenting the work of America's best and brightest climate scientists. The Heritage Foundation should, too.

      Sincerely,

      Aaron Huertas

      Press Secretary

      Union of Concerned Scientists

    10. An American Patriot says:

      Wake up my fellow Americans. You have been sold a colossal bag of manure. Of course, thanks to the gullible folks in this country who are willing to listen to the likes of Al Gore, the man is a multimillionaire, many times over. Your contribution to this? Your freedom to drive a car you desire, use conveniences which are soon to be removed from your possession and the list goes on and on. If any of you had read about the evolution of this great land mass you would have seen that what is happening now happened many years ago. Not sure what autos or plastic bags or fertilizers or cows, etc, etc were available. There was no New York Times to report the disaster to whomever inhabited this planet at that time.(One good thing about the dark ages). Having not been taught about this in our left wing schools by left wing teachers under the tutelage of the ever growing unions and surely noone of any intellect would think to investigate Gore's Garbage, the lemmings are in lock step with the great messiah who, like his chosen ones will not have to follow the same rigorous restrictions as we. Will Al Gore no longer heat his swimming pool? Will Hussein's motorcade consist of minicars? Of course the answer is no. I guess the CO2 he expounds and does ad nausem is not of the same as humans and cows. Yikes. You mean he is not human!!!!!No way. He is human, he just has not figured it out yet. He has established his own diety and because most around him are mind robbed robots concerned only with "what is in it for me" and "how can I fool the stupid people to vote for me again" he gets away with it. Wake UP America before you are marching in unison with the young people he is planning to conscript upon graduation from his school system so they may patrol his streets. Had you read your history you would see this as Hitler's plan. Oh well. Al Gore gains more millions and we lose more freedoms as the loonies continue to run the asylum, thanks to the lack of concern by those who voted for CHANGE.

    11. An American Patriot says:

      The healthcare debacle marches on. I still say if everyone would call the white house and inform the followers of the great messiah that we insist on the healthcare he and his precious wife and kids and all of the folks who were sent to DC to make sure our needs are first on their list maybe these idiots whose salary we are paying for would realize they are there to do our bidding. I would love to ask them a few healthcare significant questions. I could probably do an entire comedy routine on their answers but this is not funny. Their plan is to restrict healthcare to us the tax payers while they buy votes from illegals by giving them what we deserve. Healthcare is just another avenue in which they are so totally off track. Please derail this run away train before hussein makes it illegal to question anything spoken by the great messiah

      GOD BLESS AMERICA

    12. Jim Carlyle says:

      I suggest that Barbara Boxer is not a credible source for this type of information. She is acknowledged as the least intelligent Senator and has no qualification in the area of science. A viable question is; what can the Federal Government do to effect changes in the current climatic trends? Haven't seen this addressed as yet.

    13. Richard Cancemi, Ar says:

      More and more scientists who thought humans were responsible for global warming are becoming skeptics (see The Heartland Institute's booklet by Joanne Nova lecturer at Australian National University).

      This has become another "cause" politicized by the Liberals to drive another "nail" into the coffin of American Capitalism, continuing a long row of "nails" already being hammered by Obama and the "Progressive/Socialist Democrats.

      They want to destroy the tried and true systems that have made America the most successful Country in the history of mankind. It has given every INDIVIDUAL the opportunity to better themselves and their lives. Government controls and Collectivism as desired by Obama and his cohorts never has and never will do this!

      If they are allowed to bring about their "Brave New World", we will have a "Progressive" form of the re-institution of slavery. All of us will exist for the "Massahs" in Washington D.C. Every aspect of our lives and efforts will be controlled by its dictates! Aren't we half-way there already?

      Obama and all his ilk need to be kicked out of office and our lives! They are anything BUT Americans!

    14. Conn Carroll Conn Carroll says:

      Dear Aaron-

      Nothing in the post above denies global warming will have climate consequences. What the post does point out is that nothing in the report explains how Waxman-Markey would solve any of the climate problems identified in the report.

      Please do cite which pages in the report explain how Waxman-Markey will prevent any of the damages identified.

    15. Mike McLellen, Grand says:

      On a lazy Sunday afternoon I watched three shows on National Geographic.

      The first was about how the earth regulates it's climate by "recycling" co2 through the oceans and volcanoes and ended talking about the super volcanos, any one of which could bring havoc to mankind, destrying vast areas of land and killing large populations in the process.

      The second program was about solar radiation that can and has taken out electrical grids with relatively minor flare activity and, that larger flares are inevidable, bringing death and destruction to many people, knocking out power for months in highly populated areas.

      the third program was on "killer asteroids" and how scientists are working feverishly to develop means of deflecting or destroying the asteroids before they hit the earth. Further, i talked about the many "near misses" the earth has had. An impact by any one of these asteroids, like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs, is likely to take place some time in the future.

      Now – you really want me to worry about man-made global warming? You want me to quit driving the cars I want to drive? You want me to stop using electricity?

      The world is FULL of blooming idiots and I WILL NOT be one of them. The environmentalist "wackos" can put a plastic bag(recyclable of course)over their head and suffocate themselves! THAT would be the most beneficial thing that could be done for the environment – quit wasting oxygen on these "chicken littles".

      GO NUCLEAR

      DRILL FASTER DEEPER

      REFINE MORE

    16. JD Templeton Ca says:

      All this fuss over a paper written by 30 Government employed scientists all of whom get paid to push forward their bosses Political agenda, that has nothing to do with the enviroment or real science and everything to do with more money and power and less freedom for all of us. Most of the problems they site could happen only if the most over the top models were used.

      The truth is the models have all failed to show the cooling trend we are now in, the predicted hot spot in the Troposphere has not shown up they don't allow for Solar or Orbital variations, don't model clouds or water vapor well and have not predicted anything correctly so far. We should bankrupt the country because computer crystal balls, that don't work, tell us to, that is insane.

    17. Mike McLellen, Grand says:

      PS – Smoke cigarettes too!

      To quote Mel Gibson's Braveheart character –

      "FFRRREEEEEEEDDOMMMMME"

    18. Ben C, Ann Arbor, MI says:

      Fact: the "Ice Out" dates from inland lakes in Michigan remain unchanged for the past thirty plus years – through both the cooling phase and warming phase of planet earth. The facts simply do not support the hypothesis of global warming. The computer generated models are no longer valid.

      The solutions are obvious:

      1) of course recycling is a good idea

      2) of course weaning our country from Middle East oil is a good idea

      3) of course reducing our per capita energy consumption is a good idea.

      So,

      1) lets develop our natural gas and goal industries with the idea of making them as clean as possible

      2) expand our off shore drilling to help with the short term oil problem

      3) expand our efforts in Alaska

      4) expand our nuclear plants realizing that we will need to dispose of the nuclear waste safely.

      Wind and solar sound romatic but really will not help with energy.

      Vote out of office those in favor of the Cap and Tax bills.

      Really, none of this is very hard. Really

    19. TO'G, oHIo says:

      Again, this is the Socio-Fascist takeover of the USA.

      There is No>Real>Science viz Global Warming. Imagine doing Particle Physics by 'consensus'. This is 'science' in the vein of Psychology or better yet, Alchemy, very Retro! It's stupidity writ large!

      If a chaotic system like the weather/earth could be computer modeled with any–any–semblance of accuracy, modeling the stock market (or Vegas) would be a 101 college class (for those that could actually read); there would be infomercials that actually worked.

      The idiocy boggles the mind.

      Remember Goebbles: Tell the Lie long enough and often enough and pretty soon everyone believes it: it becomes 'truth'…Inconvienient or Not!

      It's another–further–Socio-Fascist Scam to control YOU, to make you a Serf of the State. There was a Revolution fought to throw off the shackles of Serfdom…hmmm, where was that???

    20. Charles Webb Va. says:

      This is the BIGGEST Bunch of Bull I ever heard In the 70's We had Global Frezzing The earth was going to Frezz Over Remember That!!!!! Wake Up People

    21. Eileen, New York says:

      I am disapponted in the Heritage Foundation for not questioning the premise of Global Warming. Numerous scientists have written and spoken out against this hoax. Google "global cooling". You will be amazed. We may actually be into a period of global cooling caused by a lack of sun spots. 2008 was the coolest year in 10 years and 2009 is shaping up to be cooler. Just yesterday, on the Weather Channel they were talking about the recordbreaking coolness of June across the country. Wake up!

    22. Nelia, AZ says:

      Even NASA recently released a statement saying Climatic changes are a natural occurrence. Man has no control over global warming or ice ages.

    23. BIGEEE says:

      Global warming. The largest hoax ever put forth on mankind. Scientists are flowing to the skeptical side but are still under emense pressure to toe the global warming line. Still, week by week scientific skeptisism grows but is rarely reported. Check the senate minority report at this link
      http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction

    24. Sheila, Sacramento, says:

      Am I wrong? Smog comes largely from China and the polar ice caps are melting because of the sun. I don't think we can do much about either one of them. Except continue to make the environmentalists rich by subsidizing their bogus ideas. Solar panels, by the way, once they are worn out (weatherbeaten, etc) cannot be disposed of. Nevada's Yucca Mountain won't take them. Better to paint your roof white and get a lower energy-use water heater. Much cheaper.

      Another thought. With no coal, how are people in the east supposed to heat their homes. Don't they use coal oil? Or not.

    25. Jack Kyle, Lubbock, says:

      Global Warming the Emperor’s New Clothes

      Will somebody ask Al Gore why Greenland was named Greenland? It is verifiable through examination of ice core samples that Greenland was much warmer a thousand years ago than it is today, with trees and plants growing. These ice core samples clearly show that Greenland experienced extreme temperatures changes many times over the past 100,000 years. These changes took place with a very small population, no automobiles and fewer animals expelling gas from both ends.

      Al Gore is telling us that he can see things that humans are doing to our environment that are so detrimental to our planet that we must completely change our way of life. He wants to tax anything that puts CO2 in our environment, in other words he wants to tax you for breathing. He wants to put a cork in the back side of all living creatures that expels gas. This may sound silly but is exactly the outcome of some of his proposals.

      Al Gore’s solution to these problems is to have everyone that breath or owns any animal that expels gas to buy carbon credits from him and his “Green Buddies”. If you want to continue to drive your car you must pay someone somewhere not to drive a car, thus offsetting the damage you are doing to the planet.

      Global Warming is the biggest scam that has ever been forced upon the human race. It is reported that Al Gore’s wealth has increased from a few million in 2000 to somewhere around a hundred million or more in 2009. Follow the money!

      The Emperor has no clothes; man is not the cause of global warming. Wake up, this is just another attempt to control your behavior and take money from you and put it in the hands of a few “PIN HEAD ELITE”.

      The greatest amount of gas going into atmosphere is coming from Al Gore. I am not sure which end he is talking from, but it all sounds the same.

    26. jake,LHC says:

      I remember when they used to seed the clouds with mercury in the midwest trying to make it rain. This is obamas and the ecofreaks mentality and incompetence. Lets gum up the works we want to go back to cavemen days. Just remember the majority will tell you to take your foney fraudulent global warming and stuff it where the sun don't shine.

      We conservations will keep using what God Gave us and manage accordingly.

      Why all the preseves that ecofreaks have bought and build houses on but the rest of peons can't enjoy it.

    27. Bob R Geologist, Tuc says:

      I would say that once you legislate a complex set of rules to control an imaginary climate problem, which blames a small but vital atmospheric component CO2, you have created the equivalent of a black hole in the galaxy of science. Climate is a geologic process that responds to a complex interplay of earth-bound and cosmic forces, mostly non-linear in behavior. Even Einstein dispaired of modeling as a predictor of climates.

      10 years and a reported 6 billion in research grants, has yielded nothing but "cherry-picked" dire warnings, which have no support in the history of ancient climates. Legitimate science has been suppressed by the news media. Outright lies, villification and even threats against AGW skeptics has kept this sorry hypothesis afloat.

    28. jake,LHC says:

      and Al Gore is making over $100 million off the global warming hoax that can be accounted for legally. I wonder how much obama, reid and peloski is supposed to make if they get this bill rammed down the taxpayers throats.

    29. Aaron Huertas says:

      Thanks for publishing my comment.

      This statement, "So the net threat for the United States from global warming over the next 90 years is essentially zero" is intellectually indefensible. You point readers to a paper behind a subscription firewall linked from a Manhattan Institute Web page. I e-mailed you asking for it and will be happy to read it when it arrives. If it says what you say it does, it will contradict nearly every assessment of climate change impacts and economics ever conducted.

      Your question about where you can find Waxman-Markey in the report is a little off-base. Perhaps you are not aware that the climate impacts assessment was not meant to monitor specific legislation. However, the report does state, early in the executive summary, "Reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would lessen warming over this century and beyond. Sizable early cuts in emissions would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change. Earlier cuts in emissions would have a greater effect in reducing climate change than comparable reductions made later.”

      Waxman-Markey would reduce U.S. emissions significantly and make it much easier to get an effective international climate framework in place. Heritage and opposition analyses routinely rely on faulty reasoning that assumes the United States exists in a vacuum in which none of our technology or innovative capacity (or political leadership) has any consequences outside our borders. That's poor reasoning in my view, but more importantly, it shows a startling lack of faith in American engineers, scientists and businesses.

      -Aaron Huertas

    30. okiejim Oklahoma says:

      Where do we start with this administration? Each day brings a new solution to a new threat that is going to cost us and destroy this great country. As for the global warming scare, it is time we tell our "chicken little" politicians we don't want to hear any more about it. None of them are big enough to change what goes on on this earth. God put us here for the purpose of procreation. If he thought that procreation would destroy the earth, chances are we would not have had Adam and Eve kicking it off. The biggest threat to this great country is the current President of the United States and the pack of socialists he is surrounded by. God save America!

    31. Spiritof76 says:

      Ijay,Louisville

      I am so sad to hear that you are buying the hoax called global warming due to human activities. It has no real scientific basis other than useless assertions. Currently, we know that lack of sunspots if they continue will result in global cooling just like the Maunder minimum. So, I say the biggest threat to America are senators like Boxer and congressmen that push for raising your energy costs through taxes on them. You need to wake up before you have to shell out several times what you are paying now for energy of any form, electricity, petroleum, coal, nuclear etc. Jobs will go elsewhere much faster with no foreign companies setting up shop here anymore.

    32. David Estrovitz, St. says:

      It may be wishful thinking, but lets try to set aside all the political rhetoric, finger pointing and name calling and instead try to view "Global Warming" in a common sense pragmatic examination of the issue. Prior to about the mid 19th century, Climate change was a rather slow process that took place over millenniums. Since that time however, with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, we have been emitting substances into our atmosphere that it has never before experienced and since our atmosphere is exclusively ours, whatever we place there remains there and continues to accumulate. While I do not possess the skills to attempt to quantify the effects of these emissions, my common sense tells me that to minimize these effects by offering totally inconclusive date to support delaying a resolution to the problem, is inviting disaster.

    33. Conn Carroll Conn Carroll says:

      Aaron's second comment epitomizes why proponents of cap and trade are losing the debate IN THEIR OWN PARTY.

      Aaron still has not been able to point anywhere in the Obama administration that identifies a total dollar figure as to what inaction on climate change would cost the economy. There are snippets of different events and industries, but there is zero economy wide analysis that adds up all the costs and benefits of climate change in the U.S.

      Niether is there a similar number to inform Americans how those totals would be affected by Waxman-Markey or any other cap and trade plan for that matter. Instead we get this banality:

      “Reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would lessen warming over this century and beyond. Sizable early cuts in emissions would significantly reduce the pace and the overall amount of climate change. Earlier cuts in emissions would have a greater effect in reducing climate change than comparable reductions made later.”

      How sizable would those early cuts have to be? At what cost to our economy? To the economy of developing nations? To the world? This worthless report doesn't say. It is a complete waste of government resources.

    34. Wallyblu, Zion, IL says:

      I have two questions for the Global Warming promoters.

      First what is the ideal percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere? Second what is the ideal climate temerature?

      They can't answer either question because there is no ideal percentage of CO2 or temperature. Put 300 people in a room and 100 will say it's too warm, 100 will say it's too hot and 100 won't care one way or the other.

      In greenhouses we increase CO2 to improve production, someone in the jungles of Peru might like to see some cooling and someone in Antartica might like to see some warming.

      The bottom line is the Golbal Warming question is subjective, there are those who would like to see it warmer where they are and those who would like to see it cooler.

    35. TO'G, oHIo says:

      To: Aaron Huertas, et al

      Show us your numbers. Show us your science. Show me da money, man! Show it; put it out; the REAL Stuff.

      We are in a Socio-Fascist era of 'science'. In Hitler-times, it was 'Racial'. In our time it's 'Global Warming'. The 'science' is all based on a need for Control of the Masses, ie me, you, my kids, my grandkids.

      Science, now, is based on outcome, ie: The currently PC 'idea/concept' is formulated. Then, the 'science/data/numbers' are manipulated into the 'ideal model' to arrive at the desired result, ie GETTING GRANTS (now totally Gov't), ie $$$'s for 'research'.

      It's ironic that all the Socio-Fascists are doing ultra/rapist self-interest (they used to call that evil capitalism), viz getting $$$'s in the pocket!!!!!

      In short, Any Way/Any Time! Lie/Cheat/Steal/Whatever…ends/justify means (beyond BS science, think ACORN).

      Guess what >Aaron Huertas< the Earth has been around awhile; it's been WAY WAY Colder; it's been WAY WAY Warmer.

      Idiocy, I will admit, is a Human Invention.

    36. TREVOR MERCHANT BRON says:

      THE EASY AND OR SIMPLE ANSWER TO YOUR WELL CONCEPT QUESTION IS THE GLOBAL WARMING LEGISLATION . WHEN IN SAY EASY I REALLY MEAN IT WITHOUT ANY OTHER WORDS AND OR LANGUAGE TO DEFWEND MY ARGUEMENTS SAVE UNLESS THE RADICAL SOCALLED ELITES /INTELLECTUALS OF THE LIE-BERALISM /LEFTWINGERS IN THE STOOP ACADEMIA /INSTITUTIONA /THE NOW DEFUNCT MAIN STREAM MEDIA OF THE FOURTH ESTATE SUCH AS THE THEN PAPER OF RECORDS THE NEW YORK TIMES .WHICH COULD ALSO BE DEEMED AND CATEGORIZED AS THE EDITORIAL PAPER FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND IT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ENTITIES OF THE UNHOLY ALLIANCES WITH THEIR?S THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL ELITES PLACING THEIR LOVE AFFAIRS WITH ALBERT GORE AND THE NEW ONE ON THE BLOCK BARACK OBAMA AS IMPERIALS AND MESSIAHS WHOM HAVE DONE AND WILL NEVER DO ANY WRONGS . SHOULD IN SAY MORE . AS THE CONDITION AND STATE OF AFFAIRS WITHIN TH GREAT NATION WHEN IT COMES TO THE MEDIA AND OR JOURNALISM WHICH IS DEAD AS OF NOW WITH BARACK OBAMA THERE IS SO MUCH ARGUEMENTS THAT I CAN ARTICULATE I COULD GO ON AND ON FOR DAYS . JUST CONSIDER THAT IN THE NATURAL BEING FOR HUNDREDS AND OR THOSANDS OF YEARS CLIMATE CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED AND OCCURRED NATURALLY . YET STILL THE NEW YORK TIMES ELITES AND THE ULTRA LIE-BERALS LEFT BEING SO MODERN AND PROGRESSIVE BY THEIR MESSIANIC DOCTRINES HEREBY WITH DECEPTIONS AND MANIPULATIONS ARE TELLING THE UNINFORMED AND LACKING OF THUTHFULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY ARE THE ONES TO COMBAT AND CORRECT THE SOCALLED GLOBAL WARMING DANGEROUS IN LIEU OF THE NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGES . MORE TO COME I THANK YOU SINCERELY TREVOR MERCHANT BRONX NEW YORK CITY WEDNESDAY JUNE 17.2009

    37. Steve, Bargersville, says:

      Even if I thought the global warming issue had traction, I find it interesting that we are willing to give up millions of jobs, billions if not trillions of dollars for an issue that bipartisan experts say will not economically affect the United States for 90 years; when all the while, no one is willing to address the more immediate issue that the likes of the Brookings Institute and The Heritage Foundation both agree- the looming storm that is the three major entitlement programs. I dare say that if Waxman and Markey, et al, were concerned about Americans, they would be trumpeting this issue first, then jousting their windmill. In the final analysis, the pro-global warming politicians by their very involvement in the issue should be proportionally indicted as disingenuous at best and criminally negligent at worst. They have a fiduciary duty to us citizens, even if they've eaten the apple a long time ago.

    38. Aaron Huertas says:

      That’s sort of like dismissing a cookbook because it doesn’t give you directions to the grocery store. Congress mandated that the federal scientists look at impacts – nothing more, nothing less. Here’s the information you’re asking for, which was outside of the group’s mandate:

      Cost of inaction. US costs: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/contents.a
      UK Stern report on global costs: http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm

      Cost of inaction vs. cost of climate change. Overview from Eric Pooley, former Fortune editor: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/….

      What Waxman-Markey does: http://www.wri.org/press/2009/05/wri-releases-ana

      What the US could do and related information on emissions reduction targets:
      http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/us-can-c

      -Aaron

    39. dave, las vegas says:

      the biggest threat is idiots who believe in global warming. 30 years ago it was the threat of nuclear winter because of global cooling, now again we're in a cooling period. and research shows the data that supports global warming is flawed . all it is is a way for hypocrites like al gore and his left wing crowd to get rich off our money.

    40. JOAN -- CALIFORNI says:

      THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      SCIENTISTS HAVE REPORTED THAT APPROX 85% OF ALL GLACIERS IN THE WORLD ARE INCREASING, NOT DECREASING>

      THIS IS JUST A TRICK TO PUT TAXPAYERS FURTHER IN DEBT BY CREATING ALL THESE GREEENHOUSE PROGRAMS.

      AND TO FORCE US INTO SMALL 3 WHEEL GO CARTS.

      INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS WILL PAY UP TO 3000.00 A YEAR TO FINANCE THIS CORRUPT, CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO STRIP EVERY DOLLAR WE MAKE AND PUT IT INTO THEIR BIG FAT ACCOUNTS.

      NO THANK YOU.

      WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    41. JOAN -- CALIFORNI says:

      PLEASE JOIN ME ON RESISTNET.COM

      IT IS A NATIONWIDE NETWORK OF CONCERNED CITIZENS JUST LIKE YOURSELF THAT YOU CAN AIR, CONTRIBUTE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION AND MEET PEOPLE ALL ACROSS THE U.S.

      MY USER NAME ON THAT SITE IS: JoanO

      Look me up when you sign on.

    42. TO'G, oHIo says:

      To: Aaron Huertas, et al

      You will note in >>Aaron Huertas'<>Aaron Huertas<<, show it; cite it; Show The FUNDING; LAY IT OUT.

      Your above comments say nothing, other than the usual tenured-academic/out-come-based/grant-based/Gov't-based psudeo-science.

      Make it easy for us UnWashed Proles to understand.

      Prove it.

      Do a proof on Man/Woman (not into the Sexist thing of MAN-BASED) Based Global Warming, not 'consensus', not conjecture, not modeling. PROVE IT.

      [We all know that the Earth has warmed since the last Ice Age, well, some of us do.][We'll also stipulate that the Earth was Warmer prior to the last Ice Age, ergo Ice Age...etc...ad nauseum...Wow...whatever!]

      Logic and Reason have left us. We are entering a new Dark Age…A DARK…Orchid (Huerta).

    43. Mike, Hickory, NC says:

      To so-called "Progressive" government elitist and statist politicians and bureaucrats, of any political party, such things as facts, polls, and studies all too often don’t count.

      Indeed, as continually demonstrated by such power and money-grabbing politicians and bureaucrats as Obama and his Comrades, so-called "polls" and "studies", along with our Constitution, and even their own laws, regulations, and rules, are nothing but fodder and things to be broken for them to ram-through their spending, taxing, and regulating actions to increase the power of government unto themselves at the expense of the people, which is so demonstrative of such government that it is what caused Thomas Jefferson to observe how "Experience has shown that as government grows, liberty decreases" and write so that such government is both alien and antithetical to our founding principles and documents, including our Constitution and our first ten (10) Amendments, which are in fact written to free the people and limit government.

      So what can we do? As Thomas Jefferson said, "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” So now, since we, the people, have failed to do that, and Obama and his Comrades are determined to have us fail even more to do that, now we must instead again act, including in accordance with our Declaration of Independence in which it is written "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object (government power and money-grabbing) evinces a design to reduce them (the people) under absolute Despotism (ruling/demagoguing and pandering to increase government power and spending), it is their (the people's) right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security".

      Otherwise, such so-called “Progressive” government elitist and statist politicians and bureaucrats, such as Obama and his Comrades, will continue grabbing for ever more power and influence through their actions for more government control, debt, spending, and taxes, even in the name of the environment, which of course, as always, brings the subjugation of the people, even despite the fact that such so-called “Progressivism” results in practically no benefit to the environment but instead tends to cause, if anything, otherwise preventable damage to it also, as already in evidence in other such “Progressive” countries, as in the destruction of businesses and jobs, etc, and practically no benefit to the environment.

    44. Jamey, Central Calif says:

      oBAMA sure has a shoot from the hip and see what sticks philosophy. If he only had competent advisers he might be ok. Unfortunately for him, he has surrounded himself with what ever feels good liberal idiots. Now they have power. "Don't get into an argument with an idiot, there will only end up being to idiots in the end," the saying goes. Well, we now have a bunch of idiots running the country. Interpolate THAT!

    45. Barb -mn says:

      Aaron, surely you are writing for the man-made global warming promoters. Your research comes from the promoters. Please read promoters carefully. And between the lines.

      MANY FORMS OF LIFE ARE THRIVING TODAY AS MAN does not create GLOBAL WARMING OR EVER HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTROL NATURE (other then their own natural being!) ANIMALS do not create GLOBAL WARMING. There is NO CLAIMED EVIDENCE. There is NO DAMAGE! NO AMOUNT OF MONEY WILL STOP GLOBAL WARMING/NATURE!

      There is NO WAY TO STOP WHAT NATURE BRINGS ON! However, but with no guarantee, ways to prepare.

    46. Barb -mn says:

      jjay,

      How can a solution be found to something that doesn't exist?

      All is a waste of time, money and robbing the people of liberty and freedom including ECONOMIC freedom.

      If what is claimed regarding man-made global warming was true, the government would STOP IMPORTS OF ENERGY and America would be using her own natural resources, which would eliminate that much more cause (energy to import) of man-made global warming.

    47. letha welborn, midla says:

      I don't think that President Obama should just ask doctors about health care reform. It does not just effect them. It affects nurses and nursing staff. If you think that there are lawsuits now—just wait. Health care reform will decrease the money allotted to hospitals and really decrease the money given to nursing homes. Nurses working in hospitals are stretched enough as it is now. With health care reform, nurses will be required to be payed less and do more. What about the national patient safety goals based on sentinel events reported to JACHO? What about the safety for patients in general? The Obama administration is not thinking this through. Has any of them actually followed a nurse in a hospital or nursing home for a week 24 hours a day? NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      If they had, they would (maybe) see things different. I have my own thoughts of healthcare reform which would give government help and let most Americans keep their insurance.

      1) Place a "doctor's office" as part as the Emergency Room utilizing Nurse practitioner's, Physician Assistant, or a Resident. A nurse can triage the patient to where the patient should go.(Many of the patient's complaints that are presented at the ER is something that can be managed in a doctor's office. Have the patient pay a nominal fee to be seen.) And, each of those utilized can be paid less than the doctor as well as decreasing the cost of the ER visit substantually.

      2)Utilize government based health care offices. These offices are based on the patient's income then they pay according to a sliding scale. Then patient's are given prescriptions that are usually generic. If the drug prescribed is a name brand, the office tries to find funding for the drug.

      Pretty simple.

    48. Lynn B. DeSpain says:

      All States need to join and remind the Federal Government of the 10th Amendment to the Constituttion. The Feds have stepped whay beyond the bounds of the Constitution and need to be coalled on it before we find ourselves in Mussolini's Fasciast Italy.

      Hozro

    49. Tim M. Brantley, 560 says:

      Even if global warming was a reality, when will Americans figure out that we cannot solve this problem on our own. It would take the Chinese, the Russians, and many other countrys to affect a real change. America cannot do this alone.

      Has anyone possibly considered that the EPA is the agency that has bankrupt our auto industry with all their regulations on auto emmissions?Whatever happened to the muscle cars of the 60s?

    50. chyatt, albuquerque says:

      The real threat from this new administration should be (PC) The North American Adverse Impact Program. Let’s just shorten it to “NIP”. The essentials of this program are that any business leader, government employee or organization that disagrees with the appointed and self professed leader will lose their job. Or as a contingency pending a reason not yet available to terminate the services of an under appreciative individual, you just put another agency in place to “czar them”. If warming is occurring and trees are the answer, why not just start forcing local governments to “plant trees” instead of harvesting revenue. No, the real warming that is taking place is the blood of tax payers which is near steaming do to elected officials spending, spending, and spending. Read wasting money. Were tired of “add on’s” in legislation and were tired of corruption.

      Like the lady from AZ said, “Get ready we are coming”.

    51. Aaron Huertas says:

      I got a hold of the paper Manzi cited. In my view, it says nothing close to what Manzi and Carroll claim. It amounts to cherry picking among the great bulk of economic literature which indicates that unchecked climate change will damage the world's economy far more than the climate change we will experience with mitigation.

      First, the (Table 3) Manzi cites divides the world into four quartiles based on income. While the United States falls into the richest quartile, the paper does not draw conclusions about individual countries. The authors don't differentiate in that table between the US, Great Britain, Switzerland or any number of countries with wildly different climates. (Switzerland, for instance, has no coastline to worry about when it comes to sea level rise.)

      Overall, the paper's main purpose is to compare the disproportionate impact climate change will have on poor and rich countries. The paper is by no means an exhaustive examination of the economics of climate change, like the Stern report or other studies I linked to above. And the authors never intended it to be.

      Finally, it underestimates the negative consequences of climate change and the authors acknowledge they underestimate them. I direct your attention to page 3, where the authors say, "Although non-market effects will certainly add to expected damages, reliable estimates of the magnitude of the resulting welfare impacts do not yet exist. The reported market impacts thus underestimate the total impacts of warming."

      Thanks,

      Aaron Huertas

    52. Conn Carroll Conn Carroll says:

      Thanks again for coming back Aaron. Its true that the paper Manzi cites does not deal with the US specifically, but the paper does conclude that in rich countries, which the US definitely fits into, "changes in temperature had no discernable effect on growth."

      The same can not be said about cost estimates for global warming legislation. Whcih was the whole point of the post (look at the title).

      Aaron has still completely failed to answer:

      1. What is going to be the net economic cost of global warming to the US economy?

      2. How much is it going to cost the US economy today to stop these future losses?

      3. Do they costs saved tomorrow outweigh the costs born today?

      The CCSP report doesn't even attempt to answer any of these questions. It is a completely useless piece of scaremongering propaganda.

      And heritage is not the only one that has that opinion:
      http://masterresource.org/?p=3332

    53. Aaron Huertas says:

      Please take the time to read the reports I linked to above. They answer your three questions. After all, I took the time to look at the study you cited.

      The clear economic consensus answers to your questions are:

      1) A lot

      2) Less than a lot

      3) Clearly, yes

      The claims on the Master Resource blog are laughable. The bulk of the report was completed under the Bush administration, which, as you remember, opposed mandatory policies to address climate change. Calling it an advocacy document ignores the reality of the scientific process behind the report. Look back at the public drafts posted online before Obama took office. They're not very different from what the scientists released yesterday.

      Thanks,

      Aaron

    54. Aaron Huertas says:

      Edit: Not yesterday, but two days ago.

    55. Conn Carroll Conn Carroll says:

      I asked:

      1. What is going to be the net economic cost of global warming to the US economy?

      2. How much is it going to cost the US economy today to stop these future losses?

      3. Do they costs saved tomorrow outweigh the costs born today?

      Aaron answered:

      1) A lot

      2) Less than a lot

      3) Clearly, yes

      Tell me on which page of the CCSP report any of these questions are answered. What is the dollar amount for the costs of global warming? What is the dollar amount for the costs of reducing carbon emissions? The CCSP study Aaron is trying to defend answers none of these questions.

      And Aaron will never be able to attach specific numbers to them either because they do not add up to his predetermined policy conclusion: massive energy taxes that will kill the US economy and any other economy that adopts them.

      That is why Germany is wiggling out of Kyoto, that is why Japan is doing the same, that is why China and India have promised to never limit their economic growth by agreeing to carbon limits.

      Show us the cites us Aarons. Cites with hard numbers that back up you claims.

    56. Aaron Huertas says:

      I did answer your questions. Read the links. The NRDC study estimates $1.8 trillion in global warming costs for the US under unchecked climate change. Stern estimates 5-20 percent loss of global GDP under the same. The Pooley paper covers several studies of what a cap and other sectoral policies would do to overall economic growth. Even opposition studies conclude: not much. Therefore, based on the bulk of peer-reviewed literature regarding both the costs of action and inaction it makes economic sense to put policies in place to cut emissions.

      As I've told you twice now, the CCSP was not charged with answering the questions you pose. Your insistence that I can only use it to answer your questions is an astounding case of special pleading.

      -Aaron

    57. Pingback: What is the Bigger Threat? Global Warming or Global Warming Legislation « Conservative Thoughts and Profundity

    58. Robert G. Lasheff says:

      Anyone who remains in denial of natural or human influenced climate change and its Immediate and fully apparent exsistance is simply ignorent of in your face REALITY.

    59. Barb -mn says:

      Aaron, you seem to refuse all that needs considering. And what is based on actual fact and sense.

    60. Olathe, KS says:

      The war on Global Warming is a well thought out, money making scam…

      JBillings

    61. Pingback: Cap-and-trade: a flawed policy we can’t afford « Resolute Determination

    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.

    ×