Source #17

TITLE: Obama’s Cap and Trade Energy Plan May Cost over 1 Trillion and up to 4 Million Jobs 

SUMMARY: This article categorizes Obama’s 2009 Stimulus Package as a “cap-and-trade” policy. It argues the package could be detrimental to the American economy because it costs too much. The entry argues Europe’s economy should be a warning and an example to America, arguing that even with a focus on green jobs, many European employers in the green sector are still forced to fire workers as a direct result of a cap-and-trade policy.  Energy prices and production will increase, and coal production costs alone will increase anywhere between 161% and 413%. This article also claims the Stimulus could potentially cause up to four million job losses (an unemployment rate of about 2.7%.) 

TOPIC: 2009 Stimulus Package is bad for America 

CATEGORY: Citizen (Blog) 

WHAT IS IT? An online blog entry archived at ConservativeXpress.blogspot.com

PUBLICATION INFORMATION: The Conservative Xpress, February 22, 2009 

AUTHOR: The ConservativeXpress

LOCATION: http://conservativexpress.blogspot.com/2009/02/obamas-cap-and-trade-energy-plan-may.html

ACCESSED: February 24, 2009 

SUPPORT: 
*  U.S. President Barack Obama 
* The New York Times, largest metropolitan newspaper in the U.S.A. 
* U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. federal department in charge of energy and nuclear policy 
* Wayne Winegarden, economist and partner of Adruin, Laffer, & Moore Firm  
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, federal agency focusing on chemical, health, and environmental regulations  

AUDIENCE & AGENDA: This is a blog by and for American conservatives (hence the witty name.) The motto of ConservativeXpress.com is “Dedicated to America. Self-evident Freedoms Provided by Our Founding Fathers and The Constitution. Personal Freedom and Liberty. Strong National Defense. Fiscal Responsibility. Limited Government. Free Market Enterprise. Freedom of Speech. Say No to The Fairness Doctrine. Support The Bill of Rights. Energy Independance.” The current agenda for this online community is to “track the CRAPulus” bill of 2009. It is also trying to raise lobbying funds via a very obvious and attention-grabbing “DONATE” yellow button  on the right side of the screen, conveniently located under the words “Support our Fight; Free our Republic.” Private contributions from individuals online is the site’s funding source. The targeted audience for ConservativeXpress are individuals (preferably conservative), who are not happy with Obama’s being elected as U.S. President, and who are enrage about the 2009 Stimulus Package. Its main goal is to raise awareness of the Stimulus, and how it could make the American economy worse than it already is. Anyone can join this online community and post his or her comments and input, free of charge. 

USEFULNESS: Although my display of ignorance in completing this blog entry will be slightly embarrassing; I must be honest and admit that reading this article forced me to look up “emissions trading” on Wikipedia.Org- obviously  I am not an economics guru. The article argues against the 2009 Stimulus package, because it claims the Package would increase energy production costs, which will then lead to higher unemployment rates around America because companies will try to pay the rising energy costs by firing workers. The article sites Europe’s emissions trading policy as a failed example the U.S.A. should learn from. One great thing about reading this article was was learning about the conservative argument against the stimulus. However, the major problem I had with this article was the statistics. Although I am glad it cited a few of them from different sources, there seemed to be a problem with each of the sources. For example, one of the sources is the professional opinion of a single expert, which is used as the only reference to merit many of the author’s claims. Many of the statistics also seemed sketchy, as they site a wide range of numbers (“…Cap-and-trade proposal, will increase the cost of coal for power generation by between 161% and 413%.) This is too big a discrepency for me to take this stat seriously. Ultimately, although the numbers and expert opinions in this source appeared a little too skeptical to me, I am glad I was able to learn the conservative argument against emissions trading. President Obama made it clear that he intended to establish business caps and green incentives, so I would like to learn more about this particular area of the Stimulus. 

WORKS CITED: 
* Calmes, Jackie. “Obama Planning to Slash Deficit, Despite Stimulus Spending.” The New York Times, February 21, 2009.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/us/politics/22budget.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

Accessed February 24, 2009
* Energy Information Administration. “Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007.” April 2008 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/execsummary.html

Accessed February 24, 2009 
* Energy Information Administration. “Energy Market and Economic Impacts of S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate 
Security Act of 2007 ” April 2008. 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/s2191/pdf/tbles3.pdf

Accessed February 24, 2009 
* Kaminsky, Ross. “Potential Costs to America from Cap-and-Trade.” HumanEvents.com. May 21, 2008. 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26621

Accessed February 24, 2009 
* Lieberman, Ben. “Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills.” The Heritage Foundation Leadership for America. December 6,
2007. 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm

Accessed February 24, 2009 
* Mufson, Steven. “Europe’s Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases.” The Washington Post. April 9, 2007. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/08/AR2007040800758_pf.html

Accessed February 24, 2009
* The New York Times. “Global Warming.” February 25, 2009 (U.S. Eastern Time) 

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

Accessed February 24, 2009 (U.S. Pacific Time)

Advertisement