First, we start with this picture, from the National Association of Manufacturer’s blog site www.shopfloor.org:
Second, we did not read through the whole bill as we still have a business to run and quite frankly, it would take me a few months to go through it. Luckily, we can read some of the digest versions and call out a few of the salient aspects of the proposed legislation that will impact manufacturers in general and metal producers and consumers in particular. We wanted to examine the specific provisions that would impact metal-buying organizations. These provisions include the following (complete list appears on the CBO’s Director’s Blog site):
- “Require certain retail electricity suppliers to provide a minimum percentage of their electricity sales with electricity generated by facilities that use qualifying renewable fuels or energy” [Ed Note: Winner – wind and solar energy providers and the firms that manufacture these technologies]
- “Establish a Clean Energy Deployment Administration within the Department of Energy, which would be authorized to provide direct loans, loan guarantees and letters of credit for clean energy projects” [Ed Note: Winner ” we could see a wide variety of manufacturing organizations as recipients of these funds]
- “Increase by $25b, the aggregate amount of loans Department of Energy is authorized to make to automobile manufacturers and component suppliers under the existing Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program” [Ed Note: Winner ” automotive OEM’s and component suppliers]
- Authorize the Department of Transportation to provide individuals with vouchers to acquire new vehicles that achieve greater fuel efficiency than the existing qualifying vehicles owned by the individuals” [Ed Note: This is the famed Cash For Clunkers Program which we have previously commented on and believe will have little if any impact as an automotive stimulus)
We understand these provisions at first blush may appear quite positive and in combination with reduced carbon emissions, who wouldn’t be in favor of it? But there are several extremely negative aspects to Carbon Cap and Trade some of which we have previously reported on including:
- Ã‚Â It’s a new tax paid for by consumers and every company along a supply chain. It will have a negative impact to GDP and any estimate of cost ought to include impact on GDP
- Treatment of imports from countries without similar legislation (resulting in either an onerous new import tariff classification scheme or worse, a re-location of businesses offshore); creation of new energy inefficiencies as firms operate only when they have received their lowest energy bid
And finally, we have stayed clear from the science behind global warming (because it’s such a hot potato). However, when key scientific data is suppressed from the public domain because the EPA and the Administration don’t like the findings, I can’t help but think I’m being snowed. Check out this blog post from the National Association of Manufacturing entitled: Wonder if Union of Concerned Scientists Would Retract Any of This. That post links to this article that contains the study repressed by the EPA.
Whether or not you believe the study or not isn’t relevant. Just ask yourself why your government is suppressing information from public debate.