Cap and Trade legislation of 2009 was justified

Pro picked a good topic, because cap and trade legislation is said to be next on Obama's agenda. It's a shame that Pro had nothing to say about the subject. Pro failed to define "justification" or to offer any proof that the legislation passed by the House meets any standard of justification. I will assume that "justified" means having "having benefits outweighing its costs." 1. The theory of global warming crisis is at this point proved largely invalid, so there is no climate justification. CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, so that increased CO2 causes some global warming. The physics of carbon dioxide are such that doubling the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would produce about 1.5 degrees of temperature rise. That's comparable to past prosperous warm periods like the Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was named for its greenery, and the Holocene Optimum, about 6000 years ago when civilizations rose in the Middle East. Global warming crisis theorists claim secondary effects in the atmosphere multiply the CO2 effect to crisis proportions, causing not just 1.5 degrees of warming, but 4.5 degrees of warming or more. The claim was based upon the warming that occurred from 1970 to 1995. Crisis theorists claimed that there was nothing else going on affecting climate: no solar effects, no volcanoes, no ocean cycles ... nothing except the rise in CO2. Therefore, they argued, there must be a multiplying effect for the CO2. The disproof is that even the UN now admits that there has been no global warming for the past 15 years, yet CO2 has continued to increase. If there is nothing else going on, as crisis theorists continue to claim, why have the predictions failed? Clearly there *is* something going on that is at least as important as CO2 effects. In fact, it is probably a combination of several factors such as multiple ocean cycles adding, a lack of volcanic activity (that causes cooling), and lower cosmic ray activity (that provides cloud seeding). In addition, analysis of "natural experiments" where CO2 has increased locally shows that the effects of CO2 are as the physics predicts, and are not multiplied. http://www.junkscience.com... Also see the book "Chill" by Peter Taylor for a discussion of the recent science. 2. Let's assume for debate purposes that there is a CO2 crisis, and also that the legislation will work exactly as proposed, an extremely unlikely outcome. Even under those assumptions, computer models developed by the Government for the purpose of justifying the legislation show that the reduction in temperature rise would be only 0.05 C. http://gwswindle.blogspot.com... It is in the realm of a symbolic act to appease climate gods. If one believes in climate crisis, the right approach to fixing the problem lies in climate engineering. Climate engineering solutions could provide and actual cure, and do not pose all the international challenges and disastrous consequences posed by cap and trade. http://www.newscientist.com... 3. Cap and trade is not justified because it formalizes a system of payoffs. The system takes money from people who need to heat and cool their homes and from industries that provide jobs and gives it to a vast enforcement bureaucracy, to politicians who use it to dispense favors, and to middlemen who make a fortune trading the credits. Politicians control who suffers and who gets the riches. It has been tried in Europe, with widespread corruption the result. http://online.wsj.com... The system makes the middlemen trading credits rich. It the US, a prime trading beneficiary would be General Electric. http://thecommonconservative.com... GE has given huge support the Obama and the Democrats. They will be paid off handsomely for their support. The corruption is inherent. "The cap-and-trade system being touted on Capitol Hill would create a multibillion-dollar playground that would, once again, create a group of wealthy traders benefiting at the expense of millions of average families—middle to low-income households that would end up paying more for food, energy, and almost everything else they buy." http://www.usnews.com... 4. Cap-and-trade will have an insignificant effect on global CO2 emissions. Europe has had both cap and trade and subscription to the Kyoto Protocol. The US has neither, but the US emission history is better. "In recent years, despite all efforts following the Kyoto Summit, CO2 emissions have been rising more steeply in Europe than in the U.S.A. Like it or not, those are the hard facts." http://www.leonardo-energy.org... 5. Cap-and-trade causes industry to shift out of the developed world into the lesser developed countries, so even the tiny reductions in CO2 promised will not be achieved. In Europe, a third of their CO2 emission are transferred out. http://www.theecologist.org... In the US, California has its own green energy initiatives that dramatically increased energy costs. The result so far is that half the industry has moved out of the state. Nationwide cap and trade legislation would punish energy-intensive heavy industry in America, moving it China, India, and other countries that refuse to destroy their economies with exorbitant energy prices. http://hotair.com... "According to an analysis of climate legislation performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the cap-and-trade system favored by President Barack Obama and many congressional Democrats could potentially damage the U.S. manufacturing sector and force jobs to move overseas. ... s the EPA states: "A cap-and-trade policy increases the price of energy-intensive goods. The majority of this price increase is ultimately passed onto consumers. … [L]ower income households are disproportionately affected by a GHG (Green House Gas) cap-and-trade policy because they spend a higher fraction of their incomes on energy-intensive goods."" http://www.cnsnews.com... 6. In an odd twist, cap and trade may actual increase CO2 emissions, by making conversion to natural gas uneconomic. Improvements in technology have made supplies of natural gas cheaper and more abundant. Gas burns producing less CO2 than coal, so initially it seems that cap and trade would benefit the gas industry. However, to win approval in coal producing states, Democrats included special dispensations for the coal states. (It's like the Pope giving out indulgences in the Middle Ages.) In a free market for energy, cheaper natural gas would displace coal over time, reducing CO2 emissions. But under the proposed legislation, carbon credits go to coal and not to natural gas, keeping coal viable where is would ordinarily be displaced. Cap and trade is unjustified because it would have no significant effect on global warming and might even increase it; it will dramatically increase energy costs to consumers for the benefit of the politically favored, and it will drive jobs and industry other countries. " ... estimates of job losses attributable to cap-and-trade range in the hundreds of thousands. The price for energy paid by the American consumer also will rise. The studies reviewed showed electricity prices jumping 5-15% by 2015, natural gas prices up 12-50% by 2015, and gasoline prices up 9-145% by 2015." http://www.usnews.com... There is no justification. The resolution is negated.