This morning we reported on a recently-leaked document from the G20 Climate Finance Experts Group detailing that while Congress has promised to give Waxman-Markey’s energy tax revenues to Americans, Obama administration negotiators are promising to give that very same money to the governments of China, India and a host of other countries.
But that is just the beginning of cap and trade’s duplicity exposed by the documents. Page 10 of the document shows that those working to give our income away know they can’t be straight forward:
“A second question is how to address funding sources that might not be included in a contributor’s up front commitment. In particular, carbon markets are likely to provide a large fraction of financing for some contributors yet may be difficult to pledge.”
Translation: “If taxpayers [contributors] know that cap and trade commits America to sending hundreds of billions of dollars per year to foreign governments for decades to come, they might not like it so much.”
Who decides how much the rich countries need to transfer to the rest of the world? This group of finance experts offers two options with one being strongly preferred. The trick, here, is that “contributors” means “decision-makers” more than it actually means “contributors.”
Option 1: “Only developed countries contribute. While this has been the dominant model in the past (although some developing countries have contributed to the GEF), among other things, it ignores the dynamic nature of development and the common feature of the climate change challenge.”
Option 2: “All countries except the least developed countries (LDCs) contribute, but developing countries remain net recipients. By engaging all but the least developed countries, this creates global ownership in the process and further incentives for mitigation.”
Question: If you put a dollar in the homeless person’s cup, the homeless person puts in a nickel but keeps it all, are you both contributors? If you said “yes,” you are well on your way to being a climate finance expert.
Next question: Should you and the homeless person vote on how much you put in the cup? Say “yes” to create “global ownership.” See how easy it is to be a climate finance expert?
In other words, there will be “global ownership in the process” that determines how much money gets taken from energy-consumers in the U.S. and given to third-world bureaucracies.
In stunning ignorance of the cost to those who pay, this group sees a bigger problem with the third-world’s ability to spend the money than with our ability to pay:
“The rate at which public funding can be scaled up as a practical matter is limited by the absorptive capacity of the recipient country, the efficacy of delivery channels, and potential constraints in contributing countries.”
The constraints on spending are definitely there, while the constraints on taxing are only “potential” constraints. That is, so long as they can spend it, we can pay it!
This leaked document is a litany of proposals for stripping financial sovereignty from the U.S. and other well-functioning economies for transferal to international organizations where the inept and kleptocratic get access to the wealth they prevent their own citizens from producing.
Supporters of cap and trade, and carbon taxes have some more explaining to do.
During a July 7th Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on the 1,500 page Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) got Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to admit that “U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.” This is 100% consistent with all the best science which shows that the carbon reductions under Waxman-Markey will not affect global temperatures in any material way. For example a recent study of cap-and-trade by MIT concluded:
The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead…The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation.
As we have asked before, “So how is that ‘developing country participation’ going?” Well, just this week ministers from 10 African countries renewed their intent to demand billions of dollars in aid before they sign any climate agreement and both China and India have also made it crystal clear that they require billions in aid to help finance carbon-reducing projects before they agree to reduce their emissions.
So where are all these billions of dollars going to come from? You, of course. A recently leaked document from the G20 Climate Finance Experts Group refers to “carbon market finance,” as a major source of the “hundreds of billions of dollars per year” delivered to the rest of the world by the U.S. and the other wealthier nations. So what is “carbon market finance?” It’s what Waxman-Markey proponents call cap and trade even though, in reality, all it is a huge new energy tax.
But the story gets even better. Remember all those EPA and CBO estimates purporting to show how little the Waxman-Markey energy tax would hurt consumers? Well, besides the fact that they all ignored the cost of lost GDP from higher energy taxes, the CBO and EPA also assumed that Waxman-Markey would rebate all of its tax proceeds back to consumers. For example, the CBO estimates Waxman-Markey would raise taxes on Americans by $872.8 billion between 2010-2019 but then also assumes that the federal government will immediately turn around and spend $863.8 billion.
In other words, the left in Congress has already spent 100.3% percent of the “carbon market finance” revenues raised. And not a single penny of it has yet been allocated to India, China, and the other developing countries that are demanding cash payments from us before they lift a finger to reduce carbon emissions.
As our economy struggles to recover, our leaders should be working to lower our energy costs and develop our own natural resources, not enacting complex regulatory schemes that will crush our economy and send our hard-earned money overseas.
Quick Hits:
- Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO) admitted to constituents Wednesday that some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits under Obamacare.
- Despite three decades of support from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for universal health insurance, some conference leaders have concluded Obamacare will pay for abortions and worry rationing will penalize the chronically ill.
- According to Rasmussen Reports, cratering support for Obamacare has leveled off over the past two weeks with only 43% of voters favoring the plan with 54% opposed.
- According to a new poll by The Economist, only 24% of Americans believe President Obama’s stimulus plan is working and only 9% think the plan will eventually work.
- Toyota’s decision to officially close its Fremont, California plant next March means the Golden State’s toxic business environment will have killed its last auto plant in the state.