"Congress Pushes Cap and Trade, But Just 24% Know What It Is"
"Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea. "
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ust_24_know_what_it_is
Few people know what cap and trade is - I am sure even less know it works or what it costs.
Concerning cap and trade costs- there was a recent tuss-up over the schemes costs per houshold. Some Republicans recently used an MIT study from 2007 to say costs per household would be $3900 per year.
A lot of people objected to this figure. Olbermann was on TV saying the cost was only $79 a year. The study's author from MIT (John Reilly) said the cost would be $215.05.
Professor Reilly went after Johm Boehner (R-Ohio) for "intentionally misrepresenting Reilly?s cap-and-trade study to claim that President Obama?s emissions reduction scheme would cost American families more than $3,000 a year. 'It?s just wrong,' Reilly told the St. Petersburg Times in reference to Boehner?s use of his study. 'It?s wrong in so many ways it?s hard to begin.'?. Reilly called GOP claim a "Pants on Fire" falsehood.
Then Reilly backtracked.
"MIT professor John Reilly admitted to the Weekly Standard on April 22, 2009 that "the annual cost would be '$800 per household', he wrote. 'I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others).'"
That's not where the math problems stopped however. For Reilly , the $800 only represented the cost per household of "'all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases],' Reilly wrote. 'So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy.'"
Aside form the costs of retro-fits etc. Reilly estimates "the amount of tax collected" through companies would equal $3,128 per household--and "Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners".
However Reilly did not see that as an expense to consumers because they will be getting benefits back from the gov.
The tax costs have "nothing to do with the real cost" to the economy. Reilly said the $3,128 will be "returned" to each household.
"Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, 'the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].'"
"In Reilly's view, the $3,128 taken through taxes will be "returned" to each household whether or not the government cuts a $3,128 rebate check to each household"
Only about 30% of Americans care a lot about warming. Only 24% can chose the plan as about the environment. How many of them know what it will cost if the academics and media can't even keep the figures together?
O & Co are relying on this scheme to fund the budget that has quadrupled debt (and its not even 6 months yet). Hes nuking the budget while nuking energy costs and infrastructure to pay for it. American people would never support this if they actually knew what the heck was going on and what it will do to them and economy.
During campaign Obama said the program would carry a high price:
?Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.?
So when you see polls showing 60% of people supporting approving Obama it's fair to say hardly any of them know what Obama would do to them and economy that supports them.
"Given a choice of three options, just 24% of voters can correctly identify the cap-and-trade proposal as something that deals with environmental issues. A slightly higher number (29%) believe the proposal has something to do with regulating Wall Street while 17% think the term applies to health care reform. A plurality (30%) have no idea. "
http://www.rasmussenreports.co...ust_24_know_what_it_is
Few people know what cap and trade is - I am sure even less know it works or what it costs.
Concerning cap and trade costs- there was a recent tuss-up over the schemes costs per houshold. Some Republicans recently used an MIT study from 2007 to say costs per household would be $3900 per year.
A lot of people objected to this figure. Olbermann was on TV saying the cost was only $79 a year. The study's author from MIT (John Reilly) said the cost would be $215.05.
Professor Reilly went after Johm Boehner (R-Ohio) for "intentionally misrepresenting Reilly?s cap-and-trade study to claim that President Obama?s emissions reduction scheme would cost American families more than $3,000 a year. 'It?s just wrong,' Reilly told the St. Petersburg Times in reference to Boehner?s use of his study. 'It?s wrong in so many ways it?s hard to begin.'?. Reilly called GOP claim a "Pants on Fire" falsehood.
Then Reilly backtracked.
"MIT professor John Reilly admitted to the Weekly Standard on April 22, 2009 that "the annual cost would be '$800 per household', he wrote. 'I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet. I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error (and to others).'"
That's not where the math problems stopped however. For Reilly , the $800 only represented the cost per household of "'all those actions people have to take to reduce their use of fossil fuels or find ways to use them without releasing [Green House Gases],' Reilly wrote. 'So that might involve spending money on insulating your home, or buying a more expensive hybrid vehicle to drive, or electric utilities substituting gas (or wind, nuclear, or solar) instead of coal in power generation, or industry investing in more efficient motors or production processes, etc. with all of these things ending up reflected in the costs of good and services in the economy.'"
Aside form the costs of retro-fits etc. Reilly estimates "the amount of tax collected" through companies would equal $3,128 per household--and "Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners".
However Reilly did not see that as an expense to consumers because they will be getting benefits back from the gov.
The tax costs have "nothing to do with the real cost" to the economy. Reilly said the $3,128 will be "returned" to each household.
"Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, 'the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].'"
"In Reilly's view, the $3,128 taken through taxes will be "returned" to each household whether or not the government cuts a $3,128 rebate check to each household"
Only about 30% of Americans care a lot about warming. Only 24% can chose the plan as about the environment. How many of them know what it will cost if the academics and media can't even keep the figures together?
O & Co are relying on this scheme to fund the budget that has quadrupled debt (and its not even 6 months yet). Hes nuking the budget while nuking energy costs and infrastructure to pay for it. American people would never support this if they actually knew what the heck was going on and what it will do to them and economy.
During campaign Obama said the program would carry a high price:
?Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.?
So when you see polls showing 60% of people supporting approving Obama it's fair to say hardly any of them know what Obama would do to them and economy that supports them.
Facebook
Twitter