Cuts in carbon emissions would mean significantly higher electricity prices. We think the American consumer would prefer not to be skinned by Obama's EPA.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Climate change might be disastrous, but does that mean we want carbon taxes that raise the price of a gallon of heating oil to $10? And how exactly will those taxes affect economic growth?
Many have criticized a federal carbon tax, saying that it would increase energy costs. Some continue to oppose it even when that revenue would be used to reduce other taxes in what's known as a tax swap.
I think that once people understand the great risks that climate change poses, they will naturally want to choose products and services that cause little or no emissions of greenhouse gases, which means 'low-carbon consumption.' This will apply across the board, including electricity, heating, transport and food.
Even if every major government were to slap huge taxes on carbon fuels - which is not going to happen - it wouldn't do much to halt climate change any time soon. What it would do is cost us hundreds of billions - if not trillions - of dollars, because alternative energy technologies are not yet ready to take up the slack.
Conserving energy and thus saving money, reducing consumption of unnecessary products and packaging and shifting to a clean-energy economy would likely hurt the bottom line of polluting industries, but would undoubtedly have positive effects for most of us.
Many scientists and economists also say putting a price on carbon through carbon taxes and/or cap-and-trade is necessary.
Strong limits on carbon pollution will save Americans money, create jobs, improve our health, and help defuse climate change.
The EPA's greenhouse gas regulations, along with a host of other onerous regulations, are unnecessarily driving out conventional fuels as part of America's energy mix. The consequences are higher energy prices for families and a contraction of our nation's economic growth.
There may be no issue that better illustrates the differences between Republicans and Democrats than energy. Consider it the 'all of the above' strategy for reducing gas prices, versus the 'all pain, no gain' plan for punishing those who emit carbon (like you).
Money spent on carbon cuts is money we can't use for effective investments in food aid, micronutrients, HIV/AIDS prevention, health and education infrastructure, and clean water and sanitation.
No opposing quotes found.