The Washington Independent » Orszag’s Weak Defense of Cap-and-Trade

After former House Speaker Newt Gingrich attacked the idea as an “energy tax,” Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag mounted the economist’s defense, saying there would be costs and benefits — but never mentioned the words “global warming” or “climate change” — as if the costs imposed by cap and trade had no purpose.

The Marshall Institute - The Cost of Climate Regulation for American Households

The authors find that the constraints posed by the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade approach is equivalent to a constant (in percentage terms) consumption decrease of about 1% each year, continuing to 2050. Put another way, the cap-and-trade approach is the equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008, would rise to $1,437 by 2015, to $1,979 in 2030, and $2,979 in 2050.

Reviewing a host of recent studies, Buckley and Mityakov show that estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands.

"you might be thinking global warming, global shmorming"

If you are in D.C., you can join in what is being billed as the largest public protest of global warming in the United States. But even if you aren't there or you can't join the protestors, when your friends and colleagues lament the snow so late in the season, make sure they understand that this, too, is what happens as a result of climate change.