Cap and Trade: A License Required for your Home

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

I have been in touch with the author of the book "Energy Fraud". On another “message board” one wise pundit questioned his motives so here is Mr. Wingfiled's response.
Quote:
Frank,

There are always critics. Please post this reply:

Dear Mr. Bailes,

RESNET enjoys a monopoly on inspections of the Energy Star program. RESNET's own web site for their 2007 Annual Report sites problems with the quality of those inspections. Therefore the evidence of FRAUD and poor inspections is not limited to a single home per RESNET's own web site.

After the launch of www.EnergyFraud.com many consumers provided me more evidence of many abuses, including one who sent me the guilty plead of Steve Baden the Director of RESNET on charges of ethics violations from his employment for the State of Alaska. Another consumer summed it up this way, RESNET is a morally rotten organization.

Both consumers and inspectors have contacted me. The evidence is overwhelming. The fraud is rampant. Many complaints have fallen on deaf ears. The good news is that many of the RESNET Providers want the problem to be cleaned up. However they doubt the intentions of the National Association of Home Builders, the EPA and their own leadership.

Being a third generation home builder I was appalled when one RESNET Rater reported to me the comment of a home builder client of his, "I don't care if you say the home is not qualified for a tax credit, the other rater said it was."

So you see the FRAUD impacts everyone who pays taxes. So even the new guidelines are not going to be able to remove the subjective human element out of the process. Or eliminate the home builder who wants to cheat. Or the inspector who want to undercut his price and service versus the inspector who truly wants to be fair and honest. Or the EPA who insists on publishing a bogus number of greenhouse gas emissions saved from their Energy Star program.

If the new guidelines of the Energy Star program are to be more rigorous then why the change from a SINGLE HERS Score to a Range? Why not require Thermal Imaging? Why not provide copies of the Thermal Bypass Checklist for the Home Builder to sign and require this checklist be given the consumer? Why not require a picture of the blower door and duct blast and results given to the consumer like when a home inspector provides a copy of the home inspection to the consumer? Why not prove that a Manual J calculation was performed on the home? My builder just guessed.
Why does the EPA require a Thermal Bypass Checklist and RESNET does not?

Fraud at my residence including more than just listing a programmable thermostat when there was none, it included THIRTEEN ERRORS OR FRAUDULENT ENTRIES IN ORDER TO FABRICATE A HERS SCORE OF 63. FACT - None of the 24 homes built in my subdivision were compliant.
Complaints are all over the country!

After the power vent was connected with electricity and set to run when the attic was 95 degrees and higher, a drop in the Air Conditioner usage was noticeable. It does not run continuously. Negative pressure in the attic? The attic accesses are now thermally sealed. Their is no health issue.

In conclusion, I am helping the industry to improve. It is my only motivation. The program should not have rampant Fraud and abuse. The program needs to be improved. My book will be out in a few weeks and one chapter goes into many suggestions for the Energy Star program. Some of the ideas are from local code enforcement of Delaware County, Ohio.

You asked about me, or specifically why I don't have a "About Us" page. This cause is not about me. Since you asked I will tell you who I am. I am a Third-generation home builder of hundreds of homes, in construction since age eight. Building products experts as it pertains to concrete, masonry, sealants, waterproofing, and steel framed construction. Commercial General Contractor and licensed Realtor for the State of Ohio. Expert in Energy Star construction with considerable knowledge of sustainability as it relates to the LEED's program (which has also drawn it's critics).
I have been forty-two floors high in a swing stage and constantly get phone calls from the A & E community for my expertise. I am married with no children, although again I question why you would want to know.

If you have read my blog, I am sorry to say it is new. But the last entry is evidence of the problems with home builders in this country. Become a follower at www.homeenergyfraud.blogspot.com. And when you have an opinion please feel free to voice it. The great thing about this country is the right to free speech.

--
Regards,

Bruce Wingfield
End Quote:

All I can say is.... Keep up the Good work!

[Bruce Wingfield]

Perhaps a similar title would be "Cap and Fraud the Politics of Energy."

I became a Realtor in 1976. As such my experience on certain subjects should be without challenge. A mandatory national retrofit in the name of saving the planet from greenhouse gases and furthering the political myth called Global Warming, will certainly kill Real Estate which is already on life support.

For those inspectors jumping for joy at the prospects of cashing in on this type of socialism, bear in mind your home equity will come crashing down. Your home will be worth nothing when average people are not able to spend the mandated dollars required to sell their home. Mr. Gary Farnsworth is correct in that the national foreclosure crisis will only worsen. And as a result all home equity will decrease in worth.

Energy should be held subject to the Free Market forces of our Capitalistic System. Not become a Cap and Fraud Political circus. After the Carter term of office, can anyone tell me how many solar panel manufacturers were in business. It was in the thousands!!

Unfortunately without a proper payback they all went out of business except for a handful. Does anyone doubt the harm that ethanol has caused. First the cost of food went up; then to make matters worse the amount of pollutants to make ethanol is more than the amount anyone can save driving ethanol cars! Again this was engineered by politicians not free markets.

In conclusion, when politics and fraud become the dominant reason to do something we should all pause and think about the consequences. My particular home builder and his inspector committed fraud. It was more than just four inspectors making four different opinions all members of the same non-profit organization. This was much more than incompetency, this was a calculated plan to cheat the system. Energy Fraud exists all over the country, with story upon story of cheating. So this is more than just one home, one story, one complaint. Can this occur under Cap and Trade? Let the cheating begin!

I will explain more in my book to be published on Amazon soon. The title will be "Home Energy Fraud" by Bruce Wingfield. And please support the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in every aspect of government.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wingfield

Perhaps a similar title would be "Cap and Fraud the Politics of Energy."

I became a Realtor in 1976. As such my experience on certain subjects should be without challenge. A mandatory national retrofit in the name of saving the planet from greenhouse gases and furthering the political myth called Global Warming, will certainly kill Real Estate which is already on life support.

For those inspectors jumping for joy at the prospects of cashing in on this type of socialism, bear in mind your home equity will come crashing down. Your home will be worth nothing when average people are not able to spend the mandated dollars required to sell their home. Mr. Gary Farnsworth is correct in that the national foreclosure crisis will only worsen. And as a result all home equity will decrease in worth.

Energy should be held subject to the Free Market forces of our Capitalistic System. Not become a Cap and Fraud Political circus. After the Carter term of office, can anyone tell me how many solar panel manufacturers were in business. It was in the thousands!!

Unfortunately without a proper payback they all went out of business except for a handful. Does anyone doubt the harm that ethanol has caused. First the cost of food went up; then to make matters worse the amount of pollutants to make ethanol is more than the amount anyone can save driving ethanol cars! Again this was engineered by politicians not free markets.

In conclusion, when politics and fraud become the dominant reason to do something we should all pause and think about the consequences. My particular home builder and his inspector committed fraud. It was more than just four inspectors making four different opinions all members of the same non-profit organization. This was much more than incompetency, this was a calculated plan to cheat the system. Energy Fraud exists all over the country, with story upon story of cheating. So this is more than just one home, one story, one complaint. Can this occur under Cap and Trade? Let the cheating begin!

I will explain more in my book to be published on Amazon soon. The title will be "Home Energy Fraud" by Bruce Wingfield. And please support the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in every aspect of government.

The author of Home Energy Fraud sent me this YouTube Video for everyone to see.

A message to the environmental movement
Please go to;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI&feature=related

and after watching post your reply.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by Bruce Wingfield

Perhaps a similar title would be "Cap and Fraud the Politics of Energy."

I became a Realtor in 1976. As such my experience on certain subjects should be without challenge. A mandatory national retrofit in the name of saving the planet from greenhouse gases and furthering the political myth called Global Warming, will certainly kill Real Estate which is already on life support.

For those inspectors jumping for joy at the prospects of cashing in on this type of socialism, bear in mind your home equity will come crashing down. Your home will be worth nothing when average people are not able to spend the mandated dollars required to sell their home. Mr. Gary Farnsworth is correct in that the national foreclosure crisis will only worsen. And as a result all home equity will decrease in worth.

Energy should be held subject to the Free Market forces of our Capitalistic System. Not become a Cap and Fraud Political circus. After the Carter term of office, can anyone tell me how many solar panel manufacturers were in business. It was in the thousands!!

Unfortunately without a proper payback they all went out of business except for a handful. Does anyone doubt the harm that ethanol has caused. First the cost of food went up; then to make matters worse the amount of pollutants to make ethanol is more than the amount anyone can save driving ethanol cars! Again this was engineered by politicians not free markets.

In conclusion, when politics and fraud become the dominant reason to do something we should all pause and think about the consequences. My particular home builder and his inspector committed fraud. It was more than just four inspectors making four different opinions all members of the same non-profit organization. This was much more than incompetency, this was a calculated plan to cheat the system. Energy Fraud exists all over the country, with story upon story of cheating. So this is more than just one home, one story, one complaint. Can this occur under Cap and Trade? Let the cheating begin!

I will explain more in my book to be published on Amazon soon. The title will be "Home Energy Fraud" by Bruce Wingfield. And please support the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution in every aspect of government.

So I guess we should all buy your book to find out the answer??????
Sounds like another vendor selling his wares on the BB

[Gary Farnsworth]

Nick, is this a record number of views on this thread?

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by prussell

So I guess we should all buy your book to find out the answer??????
Sounds like another vendor selling his wares on the BB

Hi Pete!

No, you do not have to “buy the book to get the answer” on Energy Fraud.

• There is a tremendous amount of “Free” information already posted on the internet.

That being said…. I have spoken to Bruce on the phone and exchanged E-Mails with him and he does have a lot of useful information that he has taken the time and trouble to research.

He has done the “Home Work” and correlated the information for those of us who are interested in the Cap & Tax bill and the Energy Fraud that is coming to light.

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Originally Posted by gfarnsworth

Nick, is this a record number of views on this thread?

Gary,
NACHI has approximately 6,000 members. Of those approximately 300-400 frequent and or post on the message board.

• As of tonight, my thread has had 70,853 plus people “view” the comments posted on this section of the NACHI message board.

In the first 90-days a little over 45,000 people viewed this thread.

I have had E-Mails and phone calls from Texas, California, Florida, Washington DC., Maryland, Virginia, South Carolina, Utah, Pennsylvania, and Jerusalem.

This thread has been E-Mailed around the United States and Israel. It has been published in a newspaper in South Carolina. I was also interviewed on “Live Radio” in Jerusalem.


It all boils down the fact the American public {and apparently some Israelis} are concerned about;

• The fraudulent data that was used to promote what is being called the Cap & TAX bill.
• They are also concerned about scientific data that was PURPOSELY omitted from the studies used to promote this Cap & TAX bill.
• They are concerned about the MANDATED retrofit program that will take place ONE year after this bill is passed.
• They are concerned about an Energy Auditor conducting an inspection and then the SAME auditor doing the “Repairs” based on an inflated “estimate”. This poses a serious Conflict of Interest!
• ENERGY FRAUD: They are concerned about a “Green Wash” that occurs when an Energy Auditor who is “Friendly” with a Real Estate agent or builder does a “drive by” inspection for his buddies.
  {There are already documented cases of this occurring! }
• The American public is concerned about not being able to afford their house payments much less being able to afford to “repair” their homes to meet the ever-changing EPA standards before they can sell them. {The bill calls for them to become more stringent every year.}
• Middle American is concerned about have to FOOT THE BILL for those “Lower Income” folks who cannot afford to pay for THEIR OWN repairs!
• Middle American should be concerned about the program for RENTERS to have the homes that they RENT “Brought up the current EPA Standards”. {That is right RENTERS!}
• Middle America is concerned about Obama giving Brazil TWO-BILLION dollars of OUR TAX DOLLARS for “Off-Shore” drilling when he will not allow “Off-Shore” drilling in the United States! {The Brazilian Oil has ALREADY been sold to CHINA!}

The list is endless! There is little wonder that the American Public and people in other countries are concerned about what is going on in America!

• So… as the word gets out expect more people to view this thread!

One good thing has come of it and that is… now almost 80,000 people from “coast to coast” and even those in Israel know that NACHI exists!

WAKE UP AMERICA!
Call your Senator and tell him or her not to vote for this bill.
Go to www.congress.org to get contact information.

[Gary Farnsworth]

Keep it up.

The political definintion of socialism is that government controls industry and land. If Cap and TAX goes through, many home owners will walk away from their homes and mortgages due to the fact that paying for the repairs "needed" and then paying off their mortgage, will be more than their home is worth. I can see millions of homes, especially ones over 50 years of age, to be empty nationwide, owned by banks, who are owned by the government.

[Peter C. Russell]

Originally Posted by fcarrio

Hi Pete!


No, you do not have to “buy the book to get the answer” on Energy Fraud.

• There is a tremendous amount of “Free” information already posted on the internet.

That being said…. I have spoken to Bruce on the phone and exchanged E-Mails with him and he does have a lot of useful information that he has taken the time and trouble to research.

He has done the “Home Work” and correlated the information for those of us who are interested in the Cap & Tax bill and the Energy Fraud that is coming to light.

Frank, I looked at his site and it appears to be one house, his, and four different auditors.

You know, I am in this business and I don't see any fraud in my area what so ever. Not to say it doesn't exist but I haven't heard of one story in NH at all.

[Bruce Wingfield]

Pete,

The fraud is a result of the subjective anaylsis of raters inputing data into the REM/RATE software used by the Raters/Providers to provide a single HERS score. This occurs all over the United States. It may not be as blatant in your state, but I assure you it occurs. I have talked with raters and providers who are aware of the problem nationally. RESNET's own web site (annual report for 2007) admits problems with the process nationwide. There are some good raters who would like the "bad apples" out of the program.

I sent the following email to Dan Barron of Senator Inhofe's office today in Washington D.C. The only reason for spending the large amount of time on this issue is that I believe in energy conservation and desire it to be a reality not a fraud. I hope to just break even on the book and have risk that this will occur. If you would like I can freely give you the information if you prefer to call me to discuss it.

My email is as follows to the Senator's representative:

Per our conversation, the Energy Policy Act of 2004 allowed home builders of new homes to deduct $2,000 per home from their taxable income if the homes were constructed as energy efficient. This energy efficient criteria was established by the EPA based upon the 2006 Mortgage Industry National Home Energy Rating Systems Standards published by RESNET, also known as energy efficient mortgages. RESNET is a non-profit corporation established in Arkansas who has a monopoly on all inspections of Energy Star labeled homes in the United States and whose organization has a patent on the HERS Rating System or Home Energy Rating System wherein a HERS score of from 100 to 0 is obtainable. This scoring is done by a member of RESNET known as a Rater or Provider using a software program called a REM/RATE. The rater or provider inputs into the software various information in order to have the software calculate a HERS score as to the energy efficiency of the home being inspected. The process also involves the rater/provider making certain visual inspections, measuring square and cubic footage of the home being rated, and providing numerous subjective information in order to obtain a HERS score.

However, as in any subjective computer program, garbage in means garbage out, or in my case garbage in and fraud out. My home received FOUR different HERS ratings from FOUR members of RESNET. This is one reason the EPA has decided to go to a HERS Range instead of a single score. My home had thirteen errors that had been entered into the software fraudulently in order to achieve a HERS score of 63, when in reality a score of 76 or 78 was accurate.

RESNET's own web site posts the Annual Report of 2007 it states the following: Staff also determined that there was enough evidence of non-compliance with the standards during on-site visits to warrant a more rigorous approach to monitoring.

In conclusion, as a tax payer I seriously question the validity of any tax credit based upon the subjective analysis of a program that appears to be seriously flawed and prone to outright fraud and deception. Tax credits for new windows is something that can be seen. A subjective analysis of how well a home is supposedly well insulated can be manipulated and fraud can become a factor. As a tax payer I would submit that thousands upon thousands of homes have received fraudulent tax credits based upon the Energy Star program and it's subjective approach.

Bruce Wingfield
614-891-2151

[Peter C. Russell]

Bruce, thanks for the response. It's definitely a subject I will follow.

[Peter C. Russell]

Expect Hybrid Cap-and-Trade Bill from Kerry, Graham, & Lieberman – In recent days it has become increasingly clear that a climate bill from the Senate will not contain an economy-wide cap-and-trade program like that passed by the House of Representatives in 2009. Over the past few months, the concept has been disparaged as “cap-and-tax” and opposed to such a degree that it is essentially politically unpalatable. Even Senator Graham, working with Senators Kerry and Lieberman to craft a compromise climate bill, acknowledged last week that “cap-and-trade as we know it is dead.” “As we know it,” however, simply means a cap-and-trade system that covers the entire economy. Many believe that the Senators’ climate bill will require different restrictions on different parts of the economy, with cap-and-trade included only for certain sectors. For example: a cap-and-trade system for utilities and a carbon tax on gasoline. Please see the attached Reuters article for a short, detailed discussion of possible scenarios. Such a hybrid system will have interesting repercussions for the clean energy industry, and we will provide a full analysis of the bill when released.

[Peter C. Russell]

More info. here

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

New Report Reveals Developing Countries Control The Climate Thermostat

New NCPA Report Shows that Emissions Cuts in the U.S. Won't Reduce CO2


Dallas - A proposed climate change treaty that requires the United States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions up to 80 percent and developing countries to reduce emissions very little, if at all, would not have the desired effect of decreasing future warming, according to a new report by the National Center for Policy Analysis.

• "Developing countries, including China and India, are recognized as having the most growth in emissions in the 21st century," said NCPA Senior Fellow Sterling Burnett. "So instead of requiring the U.S. to cut CO2 emissions to have a measurable effect on future warming, a better solution would be to help emerging economies conserve energy and move toward less carbon-intensive energy sources."
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that developing nations would account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Yet, since 2003, China has doubled its greenhouse gas emissions, surpassing the U.S. as the world's largest emitter.
• In fact, China currently emits more CO2 than the U.S. and Canada combined.

In an effort to curb its greenhouse gas emissions, China and India have indicated they would reduce their countries CO2 emissions intensity - emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP). However, reducing intensity will not reduce overall emissions, according to the NCPA report.

• China's emissions intensity (CO2 per dollar of GDP) is fivetimes greater than that of the United States.
• Even if China cuts its emissions intensity 45 percent, it will still surpass the United States in per capita annual CO2 emissions by 2025.
• Every 10 percent cut in U.S. emissions would be negated by one year of China's growth.
• Because China's economy is growing annually by 10 percent, a 4 percent cut in intensity is actually a 6 percent annual increase in emissions.

"An ideal climate policy would be to develop the U.S. capacity to adapt to future climate change," Burnett said. "In the meantime, politicians and the public need to recognize that emissions reduction proposals that make Western countries bear the burden are meaningless and likely counterproductive."

To see the full report, log on to http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba694.
http://environment.ncpa.org/news/new-report-reveals-developing-countries-control-the-climate-thermostat

[Frank M. Carrio, CMI]

Higher Taxes and Economic Devastation in Return for ... Nothing?

CBO Grossly Underestimates Cost of Cap and Trade
by David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and Nicolas Loris
WebMemo #2503 June 24, 2009
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that had proponents of the bill claiming Americans could save the planet for just $175 per household. That was the figure CBO estimated cap and trade would cost households in 2020 alone.[1]

Both the CBO's analysis and the subsequent legislation are troubled: The analysis grossly underestimates economic costs while the legislation will have virtually no impact on climate.


Overall, there are a number of basic problems with CBO's analysis:

• Their allowance cost numbers do not add up;
• They ignore economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill; and

· The analysis is an accounting analysis, not an economic analysis.

Problems with Costs and Distribution of Allowances
The CBO's June 19 study projected that the allowance price--the price to emit carbon dioxide--will be $28 per ton of CO2 in 2020.[2]


Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year (the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases businesses are allowed to emit), this projection implies a $141 billion gross cost; however, CBO lists the cost as $91.4 billion.

• Although there were no changes to the bill between June 5 and June 19, the CBO projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion, and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019.

As the cap on carbon dioxide becomes more stringent, one would expect the allowance revenue to continue to climb, not dramatically decrease to $91.4 billion.[3]

• The goal of a cap-and-trade program is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

In order to realize such reductions, cap-and-trade programs establish absolute limits on total emissions of greenhouse gases.
{"Absolute limits on TOTAL emissions of Greenhouse Gases" would mean that China and other 3rd World countries would have to enact the same standards. So far they are ignoring them.
China has actually INCREASED their Greenhouse Gas emissions. They now surpass BOTH the United States and Canada combined! Signed. Frank Carrio }

Before businesses in a covered sector can emit a greenhouse gas, they need to have the ration coupons (also known as allowances) for each ton emitted.
The price a firm pays for these allowances, euphemistically referred to as "climate revenue," should be considered tax revenue.

CBO mistakenly assumes that the government spending and distribution of allowance revenue is the dollar-for-dollar equivalent to a direct cash rebate to energy consumers--that is, that the carbon tax is-not-a-tax if the government spends the money, which is simply preposterous.

Ignoring Economic Pain

Most problematic is the CBO's complete omission of the economic damage resulting from restricted energy use.

• As footnote 3 on page 4 of the CBO analysis reads, "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.
• The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor."[4]

In The Heritage Foundation's analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that translates into $1,870--a pretty big chunk of change that the CBO is ignoring.

• It is also worth noting that, of the 24 years analyzed by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), 2020 had the second lowest GDP loss.
• Furthermore, the CDA found that for all years the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or over double the 2020 hit.
• In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage) the inflation adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four--and that is before they pay their $4,600 share of the carbon taxes.[5]

The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception.

• The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an astounding $114,915.00 by 2035.[6]

An Accounting Analysis, Not an Economic One
The CBO analysis is an accounting analysis of the flow of allowance revenue; it is not an economic analysis of the true opportunity cost of the bill.

The analysis's "net cost" is essentially the cost of producing offsets and other emissions reductions--a process similar to a company's chief financial officer doing a cash-flow analysis of one investment project.



The CBO does not take into account the dynamic general equilibrium consequences of the much higher energy prices:

• There are serious economic impacts from the energy price increases that they ignore.

The CBO and Congress seem to assume that energy price increases can be mitigated by giving allowance revenue back to businesses and consumers.

• This is not how the economy works.

Prices are merely an information signal about the relative scarcity of real resources that are being used. For example, if farmers use their land, labor, and equipment to produce offsets, instead of planting more food crops, the price of food will go up. Yet the CBO report ignores this reality.

The CBO analysis cannot be used to debate the economic cost versus economic benefit of the bill. Instead, it can be used only to follow the money of the allowance revenue so policymakers and the public can understand exactly how that piece of the legislation is being handled. There is value in keeping an accounting of this revenue flow in order to determine who is getting what, but CBO should make it clear that this is the limit of their analysis.

It is inappropriate to go beyond this analysis, for example, by comparing CBO's cost estimates to those of The Heritage Foundation, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, or even the EPA, as many Members of Congress are already doing. These Members are simply trying to compare two different cost concepts--accounting versus economic.

Although the EPA's analysis is flawed for other reasons,[7] mostly because of unrealistic assumptions, they at least attempt to estimate the economic cost, which the CBO did not.

Higher Taxes and Economic Devastation in Return for ... Nothing?

Regardless of the CBO's cost estimates of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program, the necessary second part of the question--what benefits do the costs generate?--remains unanswered.

• Americans will get almost nothing in exchange for these higher taxes, and the legislation will provide nothing for future generations except more debt and less economic opportunity.
• According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[8]

This does not sound like a great deal for the next generation--millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature.

• The CBO analysis of Waxman-Markey fails to take into account all the adverse effects that will ripple through the U.S. economy if cap and trade becomes law.

CBO's grossly underestimated costs means Members of Congress will be grossly misinformed when voting on the legislation.

David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change, and Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics, in the Center for Data Analysis, and Nicolas Loris is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
[1]Douglas Elmendorf, "Measuring the Effects of the Business Cycle on the Federal Budget," Congressional Budget Office Director's Blog, June 23, 2009, at http://cboblog.cbo.gov/ (June 24, 2009).
[2]Congressional Budget Office, "The Estimated Costs to Households from H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," June 19, 2009, at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf (June 24, 2009).
[3]American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009", June 5, 2009 at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/102xx/doc10262/hr2454.pdf (June 24, 2009).
[4]Congressional Budget Office, "The Estimated Costs to Households from H.R. 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009."
[5]William W. Beach, David Kreutzer, Karen Campbell, and Ben Lieberman, "Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2450, May 18, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2450.cfm.
[6]Ibid.
[7]For a critique of the EPA's economic analysis of Waxman-Markey, see David Kreutzer and Nicolas D. Loris, "Questions on EPA's Cost Estimates for Waxman-Markey Climate Change Legislation," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No 2470, June 9, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energy
andEnvironment/wm2470.cfm.
[8]Chip Knappenberger, "Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based Arithmetic of No Gain)," MasterResource, May 6, 2009, at http://masterresource.org/?p=2355 (June 24, 2009).
http://www.heritage.org/Research/energyandenvironment/wm2503.cfm

WAKE UP AMERICA!
Call your Senator and tell him or her not to vote for this bill.
Go to www.congress.org to get contact information.