Alexandra Liddy points out that proposed international agreements for carbon-cap-and-trade schemes or carbon-dioxide regulations restrict Americans' own use of their country's resources and is tantamount to economic unilateral disarmament. Not only do carbon-cap-and-trade systems and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation of carbon dioxide raise energy prices, these practices are also detrimental to developing economies struggling to raise their own citizens out of poverty.
Vaclav Klaus points out people tend to confuse environment protection with climate control. We have to take care of our rivers, lakes, seas, forests, and air. But humans cannot control the climate. Rabblerousers have been for a long time searching for a simple and sufficiently threatening catastrophe that could justify the implementation of kleptocratic ambitions. After having tried various alternative ideas, they came up with the idea of dangerous, man-made global warming. This concept was formulated despite the absence of reliable data. http://venitism.blogspot.com
Klaus recalls that rabblerousers bought into the global warming dogma(WGD) at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, fell in love with it and – without waiting for its scientific underpinning – started preparing and implementing economically damaging and freedom endangering measures. They accepted the idea that participating in the global warming game is easy, politically correct and politically profitable, especially when it is obvious that they themselves will not carry the costs of the measures they are advocating and implementing and will not be responsible for their consequences.
Liddy asserts state and local governments should allow power producers and consumers to determine pricing, technology deployment, and selection of fuels and supplies. State governments can and should audit their own properties and buildings for effective technologies, systems, surface treatment, and energy efficiency to save taxpayer money. Energy efficiency for government buildings should be determined by state and local governments, however, not by federal dictate. Beyond that, energy efficiency does not mean pitting one region of the country against another.
Consumer demand and competition between industries, retail businesses, and commercial enterprises are the real drivers of energy-efficient products. Federal energy policies that cap or restrict use of certain types of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, or oil, under the auspices of environmental protection, limit the ability of the people in the states to determine the best means to fuel their own economies for manufacture, agriculture, trade, and other services. The truth is that government mandates are not a productive or sustainable alternative to free markets.
Liddy notes that restrictive legislation and environmental regulations that, in effect, levy taxes on the production of electricity or petroleum raise the cost of doing business for companies and the cost of living for consumers. Families not only pay the price at the fuel pump, thermostat, and grocery store, but bear the full cost of any taxes imposed on businesses by government regulators. http://venitism.blogspot.com
Lower-income families carry the biggest proportionate burden of these costs and struggle the most to make ends meet under regressive energy taxes. Most important, such restrictive policies that raise the cost of energy inhibit the financial freedom and spending power of families, enterprises, and communities. Ultimately, government-imposed costs for electricity harm West's international competitiveness for jobs and investment.
Liddy points out that a diverse, market-based national energy portfolio of fuel sources allows the private sector and state and local leaders to effectively provide affordable electricity and transportation, attract jobs, and foster business growth and improved quality of life for families. Any comprehensive national energy policy that relies on, or mandates, a future of expensive and unreliable fuel sources threatens to make the current economy energy deficient and future generations indebted to foreign governments for decades. http://venitism.blogspot.com
West has an abundance of onshore and offshore energy resources that can enable the affordable transportation of goods, whether locally, regionally, or internationally. States set standards that allow the private sector to access, inventory, and develop fuel reserves off their coasts or under their land through private leasing. While the states should set standards for outside access to resources within their boundaries, private energy companies are best able to determine the most effective and affordable means of providing electricity and transportation fuels for local commerce and economic development.
Furthermore, the states should be able to share royalties from federal lease sales for the safe development of those reserves as established by precedent through the sale of Lease 181 in the Gulf of Mexico in 2006. Four Gulf of Mexico states receive 37.5 percent of the federal revenues generated by the lease sale. Restricting access to those affordable fuels leads to higher gasoline prices and electricity costs, which have a significant negative impact on job creation, transportation, and individual mobility. Such restricted access also unnecessarily increases dependence on imported oil. http://venitism.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.