Take Action Against Climate Security Act That Will Cripple The Economy

Forums Home | The FireWire | Breaking News

Posts 1-4 of 4 | Latest Post
May 29, 2008 06:24 PM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 2, 2007

Act Now to Prevent Huge Increases in Energy Costs and Job Losses 

Undeterred by record cold temperatures worldwide for the winter of 2007-2008 and recent admissions by the UN's World Meteorological Organization that global temperatures have been in decline for the past decade and will continue to drop through most of 2008, politicians at the local, state, and federal levels are continuing to push for more carbon dioxide emission controls.

If passed, these new restrictive laws would have zero to negligible impact on global climate but would have enormous economic impact on families, industries, communities, and countries.

The most imminent legislative threat is America's Climate Security Act of 2007 (S. 2191), which is expected to come up for a vote in the U.S. Senate in June. "First, this bill will force energy prices even higher," warns Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate's leading opponent of climate alarmism:

Supporters of this bill are going to be asking the American people to pay even more for energy at the pump and in their homes at a time when energy prices are already on the rise. If this bill passes, electricity prices are estimated to skyrocket 35 percent to 65 percent within just seven years, forcing a huge economic hit on American households.

Sen. Inhofe cites studies showing the legislation killing 1.5 million to 3.4 million American jobs by 2020. On May 5, the American Petroleum Institute (API) released an evaluation of S. 2191 showing that passage of the bill would dramatically reduce domestic natural gas production and drive American refinery capital, production, and jobs overseas.

The API report warns that refinery investment would move overseas, because U.S. plants would be required to obtain greenhouse gas allowances for emissions when most foreign refineries would not. Domestic refinery investment could drop by more than $3 billion/year by 2012 and $11.5 billion/year by 2020, it says.

Click here to contact your senators and urge them to oppose S. 2191.

 




"Had the people, during the Revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to war against Christianity, that Revolution would have been strangled in its cradle... In this age, there can be no substitute for Christianity... That was the religion of the founders of the republic and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants." Charles Carrol, signer of Declaration of Independence, framer of the Bill of Rights, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, U.S. Senator
May 30, 2008 12:25 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 16, 2007
We do need to oppose this as we have other major issues.  Mark Levin spoke of this on his radio program a day or so ago and the devastating effects it would create.
May 30, 2008 07:24 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
April 1, 2007
This is a con job, if there was a real concern over global warming, why would we not hear about China building 5 new coal fired power plants a month. Global warming is not regional it's global.
June 2, 2008 04:29 AM    View printable version     Link to this comment   
Member Since:
February 2, 2007
I have been sending out e-mails to my dear liberal Representatives about this.They are starting on this on Monday.

You must login to discuss this item.