EPA Analysis of Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill Released

United States
March 19, 2008 3:45pm CST
Back in 2006 when the Man Made Global Warming Hoax was really getting some good play, Senators Lieberman and Warner cosponsored a bill now known as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008. They requested a study to be done by the EPA in order to determine the viability of this bill. The results are now in and it is not a pretty sight. From what I could determine, and what I gathered from some reading is that this bill is going to cost us $2.9 trillion in Gross Domestic Product by the year 2050, and it will reduce CO2 emissions by 25 Parts Per Million by the year 2095. CO2 has been largely discounted as a major contributor to Climate Change and Global Warming/Cooling. The main culprits are now increasingly believed to be Water Vapor and the Sun.... Imagine that, who would have thought the Sun would have any impact on our climate? While looking through this report, I noticed that the prices of certain items were less than half of what they are today.... such as a barrel of oil which in the report was listed at $50 a barrel and now it is close to twice that price. When taking that into consideration it occurs to me that this report is actually conservative in the overall cost to our economy. 25PPM is absolutely meaningless and would have virtually NO IMPACT on our climate at all, and to do so at an estimated 6.9% drop in our GDP is ludicrous. People are already complaining about the state of the economy, however, if this takes effect the economy will only get worse... and it will be for nothing. If everyone is so upset over the money that the war in Iraq is costing, then opposing this should be a no-brainer. Here is the link... http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html
1 person likes this
3 responses
• United States
19 Mar 08
Numbers as applied to events are my speciality. Based on my quick analysis of the info you have provided, your conclusion is 100% correct. Especially, that 25PPM of CO2 is a meaningless difference in CO2 levels. Mother nature is going to give us many times that over the same time frame. Even that will only have a small effect on the earth's temperature. Besides, given that a repeat of the Maunder Minimum could be recurring, a little global warming would be a great thing over the next 10 years.
• United States
20 Mar 08
After looking up the Maunder Minimum to see what the hell, I have to agree. If that theory is accurate, I have a forecast of my own... the Global Warming crowd is going to be scrambling to protect their reputations and improvise some believable excuse (any excuse) as to why it got cooler instead of warmer. I have yet to see a viable explanation as to how Mars is going through the same warming phase that the earth is... perhaps it is Martian Made Global Warming, and Al Gore has a doppelganger there who is also hawking silly films and carbon credits. Which reminds me, I saw a few references to Cap and Trade, Carbon Offsets, and Carbon Credits in that report, along with the creation of a way to trade in those.... which means that our buddy Gore should be in the big bucks really soon.
1 person likes this
• United States
20 Mar 08
The thing about the Maunder Minimum is that there has been only one to date so it is not possible to know for certain if one is due now, even though it appears to be happening. If it is occurring, this is the second time it will have happened. If the same thing happens as last time, there will be about a decade of colder than normal weather.
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
19 Mar 08
I have not read as much as you have on global warming but it seems to me that the prime growing areas of the world would be improved by global warming. In Northern Wisconsin many projections show that the growing season would increase by two to four weeks. The areas of the world that would be hurt by the Global Warming are the poor growing areas of the world. Why should we destroy the US economy and as a result the world economy.
• United States
20 Mar 08
We shouldn't be destroying our economy over this issue, or any other issue either. What I found telling about this whole thing was it seems to back up everything I have read so far on Global Warming/Climate change, and the is that man is NOT in control of it. The fact that the CO2 levels would only be reduced by 25 ppm by 2095 if this were enacted tells me that is is an exercise in futility. It also tells me that man's involvement and responsibility for Global warming/Climate Change is negligible, as is his output of CO2 and other carbons. Basically, it shows that Man Made Global Warming is a non-issue.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
9 Jul 08
Well we defeat the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, but it is only a matter of time before something like this come to become law. President Bush has been playing nice with his fellow G8 friends, and now he is all for something like Lieberman-Warner. Maybe not as hard, but what I have been hearing is that Bush now believe that man is causing global warming. We have McCain who believes in something like Lieberman-Warner, and so does Obama. If the Democrats looking like they will gain seats in both the House and the Senate, it is just a matter of time before Lieberman-Warner becomes law.