Climate change bill puts 4.1M American jobs at risk!!

[sfc_oliver]

Very well said Dan.

[Dan Moadus]

An article from my web site that I think is relevant to this discussion. It represents my position.

"Though I disagree with the "Global warming" crowd I think we can agree on at least three things:First, we know that the Earth has been in existence for nearly four billion years, and mankind has been around for about ten thousand, with only the last hundred or so of those years being industrialized. So in this long existence, any damage caused by mankind has been limited to this narrow time span. Also knowing that the Earth has been through many cataclysmic climate events, I think it is safe to say that it will survive for another 25 years or so, regardless of what we do or don't do. Other than Ted Danson or Al Gore, most reasonable people don't see us perishing in the next decade or so due to global warming.Secondly, I don't see even the environmental zealots making the claim that we are being killed by dirty air. I think most people understand that life expectancy has risen continually, and we will probably continue doing so.And third, we share the atmosphere with the rest of the world. We don't have an "American atmosphere". Bad emissions from American cars and industries will circle the globe, and bad emissions from other nations will as well.With these three things in mind and considering the present plight we find our economy in, don't you think we could take a break from saving the globe for a couple of decades and allow American industry a little breathing room so that it can be revived? Let China and India take up the fight for the next ten years, because if they decide not to worry about the environment and continue to build their industries at the pace they are currently doing, it won't matter how "green" America becomes anyways.Let's get off the backs of American industry for a while so that it can do what it does best which, of course, is to lead the world. We need to restore our industrial base and economy to secure a decent standard of living for our children.Let's take a gamble that the globe can make if for another 20 or 25 years, and then revisit the global warming issue. In the mean time, maybe China and India could be persuaded to join us in making the necessary changes.Taking into account the rapid pace of technology (think of all the products that didn't even exist 25 years ago) there more than likely will be fuel and battery technologies developed in the next decade or so that we can't envision today, that will help all of the world protect and restore the environment. Let's not make our Country destitute before that happens."[/]

[sfc_oliver]

Isn't this what many of us have been saying? There may be new green jobs, but they will be fewer than the jobs we will lose.

[Why?Town]

With 4.1 Million American Jobs at Stake, Brown Presses Protection for Manufacturers
Oct. 2, 2009 6:40 a.m.
By George Nelson
YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio -- U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown told reporters Thursday that he intends to press hard for provisions to protect U.S. manufacturing in any climate change legislation that Congress would approve.

Brown, D-Ohio, joined participants from labor, manufacturing and environmental groups in a conference call that coincided with the release of a report outlining the potential impact of legislation that doesn't maintain U.S. manufacturing competitiveness while reducing carbon emissions.

The Climate Change Policy report, issued by the Economic Policy Institute, asserts that 4.1 million jobs could be at risk in energy-intensive industries such as iron and steel, basic chemicals, glass products, cement, and aluminum production and processing. That total includes 74,800 direct and 120,400 indirect jobs in Ohio.

Brown said no climate change bill would pass without border adjustments, or import fees placed on goods produced in counties that don't tax carbon emissions. It makes no sense, he explained, for a plant to be closed here because of international climate rules and reopen in another that doesn't follow them. "They should not be rewarded for that."

Intelligently made policies, said Robert Scott, the economist who prepared the paper for Economic Policy Institute, can support the creation of millions of jobs in the United States, but if made poorly could shift production to counties like India or Japan, leading to increased production of the greenhouse gases. "The key concern here is that if we just apply policies within our domestic market, that could push industries out of the country," he said, so any legislation needs to have a border adjustment fee.

"The issue is not Pittsburgh warming or Chicago warming or Cleveland warming. The issue is called global warming," added Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers of America. Without sufficient border-protection provisions, "We will have both carbon leakage and jobs leakage," he noted. "It's tremendously important that we have a climate change bill that won't cost us jobs and just as importantly that we don't export carbon to other countries."

Scott Paul, executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, said climate policy "can't be created in a vacuum." Unless China, India and other carbon emitters are included, any steps the United States would take "could be for naught" and potentially increase emissions of greenhouse gases.

Paul said it would be "poor negotiating" to go to the next round of international climate talks without both carrots and sticks. "We need to have all sorts of tools in the tool box," he remarked.

The goal is not to impose fees but to induce other nations to set their own comparable environmental standards. "If our enacting border adjustment language gets the other major counties to the table and pass similar kinds of climate change legislation, then there's no need for border adjustment," Paul explained.

Responding to critics who say the fees could trigger action by the World Trade Organization, Gerard noted that the WTO has indicated that border adjustments would be excluded from WTO remedies if done on the basis of environmental protection

Brown and Gerard said they are concerned about the degree of discretion given to the president to act in the climate change bill passed by the House of Representatives.

"We know how presidents don't move very aggressively on protecting national interests on manufacturing," Brown said. One of the "really good things" in the House bill is a $30 billion loan fund for companies to retool to manufacture products and materials in alternative energy.

In response to the introduction of the Senate bill, Ohio's senior U.S. senator, Republican George Voinovich, said that climate change must be addressed in a bipartisan way, providing incentives for clean energy technologies so as not to drive jobs overseas and further damage the economy.

The House bill "was not responsive to those challenges," Voinovich said in a statement. Bipartisan climate change legislation should be guided by economic stability, achievable requirements, incentives for technology, and international reductions, he continued.

"Passing comprehensive climate change legislation -- which will touch every sector of the economy -- requires more than political will," Voinovich said. "It requires sufficient understanding to formulate an effective response."

Copyright 2009 The Business Journal, Youngstown, Ohio.