Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, Executive Vice President Dan Miller, and Local Legislation Manager Ralph Conner will discuss global warming from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. CST tonight, July 1, on WGN Radio’s Extension 720 with Milt Rosenberg.

Rosenberg, who has hosted Extension 720 on the WGN superstation since 1973, is a professor of psychology at the University of Chicago and once served as director of the doctoral program in Social and Organizational Psychology. Well-informed, erudite, and witty, he is widely considered one of Chicago’s top interviewers.

The program is scheduled to begin at 9:00 p.m. CST but may be delayed pending the end of the Cubs vs. Pittsburgh Pirates baseball game. Extension 720 reserves the last hour ending at 11:00 p.m. for call-ins. You can listen online at http://www.wgnradio.com/about/listen/

Please consider calling in at 312-591-7200 between 10:00 and 11:00 pm CST to join Bast, Miller, and Conner in defending the sound science, sound economics, common-sense position on climate change!

Heartland policy advisor, John Skorburg, uses his class teaching notes from Triton College to show why a soft drink or soda pop tax is ineffective.

In micro-economics, economists often use a term called ‘elasticity.’ In short, this term measures the ‘sensitivity’ between a change in price and a change in quantity demanded. So, if a price changes (say the price of a Coca Cola), the “price elasticity of demand” can measure how much the quantity demanded will change as well.

For example, a soft drink is known as a sensitive or elastic good. A lower price will lead to a higher quantity demanded – that’s why soft drink companies see their goods on sale so much at the local supermarket!

But what if a legislator decides to tax this drink and drive UP the price?

Since these beverages are sensitive to a price change, a 10% tax would actually lead to a MORE THAN 10% drop in quantity demanded – and less total revenue to the seller.

Similarly, a 50% tax would lead to more than a 50% drop in sales!! The government thinks it is getting richer, but in fact, everyone is worse off…both buyer and seller.

By James Taylor
Senior policy advisor for environment policy
The Heartland Institute

As the U.S. Senate prepares to take up the Waxman-Markey bill that restricts carbon dioxide emissions, a new poll shows registered voters oppose legislation that would increase energy costs.

The poll is particularly significant because even the most optimistic cost assessments acknowledge Waxman-Markey – which squeaked through the House June 26 – will raise energy prices and reduce consumer purchasing power.

The new poll, a sampling of 807 registered voters conducted by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, reports 58% of American voters are unwilling to pay any more than they currently pay for electricity to combat climate change. Importantly, not one respondent indicated a willingness to pay over 20% more on their monthly electricity bill to combat climate change.

Moreover, 68% of voters disagree with the idea that Congress should enact a carbon tax to encourage consumers to cut back on their electricity usage.

The new poll confirms several other recent polls showing voters are somewhat concerned about global warming but are not prepared to pay higher energy prices to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

On June 16, The Shreveport (La.) Times published an op-ed I wrote in my duties for The Heartland Institute opposing the idea of imposing a 15-cent “fee” on one’s Internet-access bill — something forbidden by the “Internet Tax Freedom Act,” which Congress recently renewed. The fee is intended to fund a special task force in the Pelican State’s Attorney General’s Office to fight Internet-based crime … for “the children,” of course.

As it turned out, the newspaper ran my piece as part of a “pro/con” package, with my opponent being none other than the Attorney General of Louisiana, James D. “Buddy” Caldwell. The AG wrote his piece nearly twice as long as mine (and had I known that he’d be afforded such space, I might have written longer). No matter, it turns out the paper’s editorial board agreed with me, and if you combine our two contributions to the debate, the “con” side comes out ahead.

I was surprised, however, to receive a snarky email from the head of the criminal division of the Louisiana’s Attorney General’s office. Don’t worry. I’m not in any legal trouble (yet). But I found it curious that this public servant took time out of his publicly funded work day to give me a condescending lecture.

See, I’m not a lawyer. So I don’t get it. A 15-cent charge on every Louisianan’s Internet-access bill is a “fee” and not a “tax,” so it does not run afoul of the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act. I didn’t go to law school, nor am I a high-powered bureaucrat, so, apparently, I should not question those who rule us.

Silly me. Anyway, here’s the text of the email I received.

Read more »

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, an ally of the Heartland Institute, reports that a senior official of the U.S. Environment Protection Agency actively suppressed a scientific analysis of climate change because of political pressure to support the Obama Administration’s policy agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

As part of a just-ended public comment period, CEI submitted a set of four EPA emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, which indicate that a significant internal critique of the agency’s global warming position was put under wraps and concealed.

The study the emails refer to, which ran counter to the administration’s views on carbon dioxide and climate change, was kept from circulating within the agency, was never disclosed to the public, and was not added to the body of materials relevant to EPA’s current “endangerment” proceeding. The emails further show the study was treated in this manner not because of any problem with its quality, but for political reasons.

“This suppression of valid science for political reasons is beyond belief,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman. “EPA’s conduct is even more outlandish because it flies in the face of the president’s widely touted claim that ‘the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.’”

CEI’s filing requests that EPA make the suppressed study public, place it into the endangerment docket, and extend the comment period to allow public response to the new information. CEI is also requesting that EPA publicly declare that it will engage in no reprisals against the study’s author, a senior analyst who has worked at EPA for over 35 years.

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. For more information about CEI, please visit its Web site at www.cei.org.

A related and evolving article from the Washington Examiner about this matter is here.

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, June 25 that the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill headed for a House vote Friday “is likely to be a defining issue of the 2010 midterm election.” Experts warn we’ll be paying a high price if that measure passes.

At the Third International Conference on Climate Change, hosted by The Heartland Institute, economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was imposed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.

Calzada disproved claims such policies have created “green jobs” in the Spanish economy. He presented data showing Spanish businesses have spent billions of dollars on carbon credits and abatement programs, resulting in two jobs being lost in the regular economy or never being created for every one job created in the “green economy.”

Energy industry scholar Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation rounded out the economists’ dire projections, showing that by 2035 Waxman-Markey would add 58 percent to the price of gasoline at the pump, 90 percent to the typical family of four’s annual cost of electricity, 55 percent to the price of natural gas, and 56 percent to the price of heating oil.

In all, Lieberman said, the tax impact for a family of four would average $4,618 a year through 2035, creating a total additional outlay of more than $110,000 with no added benefit to the family’s quality of life or personal consumption.

One of the Heartland Institute’s favorite political sites, RealClearPolitics, reports:

“As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade. The story of this legislation’s collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US—and to the whole global warming hysteria.”

The full report involves a global warming alarmist who has recanted; the persistent and vicious attacks on Aussie Sen. Stephen Fielding for keeping an open mind on the issue of global warming, Ian Plimer’s latest book, “Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science,” and the third International Conference on Climate Change, produced by the Heartland Institute in Washington DC on June 2, 2009.

The sharp-eyed analysts at the Heritage Foundation, an ally of the Heartland Institute, caught President Obama getting ahead of his health care policy. Heritage’s Morning Bell reports:

This past Monday (June 15, 2009) while selling his health care plan President Barack Obama told the American Medical Association: “No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people. If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees. Their preliminary analysis of an incomplete Democratic health plan estimated that 10 million people would have to seek new insurance because their employers would no longer offer coverage. Once completed, that number should skyrocket.

Covering the gap between Obama’s promises and the reality of his health care plan, the Associated Press reported June 19: “White House officials suggest the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn’t about to barge in and force people to change insurance.”

Considering that the White House itself admits Obama’s health care promises “shouldn’t be taken literally,” results like the latest New York Times/CBS poll showing 72 percent of those questioned support a government-run insurance plan, should be taken with a heavy dose of skepticism. That same NYT poll, which predominantly questioned Obama voters, showed only 43 percent of Americans would be willing to pay $500 a year more in taxes to pay for universal coverage. And the NYT did not ask how many Americans would be willing to give up their current health plan (77 percent of Americans are satisfied with their current plan) in exchange for a government-run option.

Read more »