Climate Control Tax or Mandated Cost?

E-mail to Congress:

EIN News says, "Hutchison Warns of Trillions in 'Cap-and-Trade' Costs. The costs of congressional proposals to combat climate change came into sharp focus Wednesday as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, released a study showing the plans could raise the nation's fuel bills by $3.6 trillion over four decades. At issue is the price tag of a House-passed bill and a similar Senate measure that would impose progressively tighter limits on the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are blamed for global warming. Under the so-called cap-and-trade plans, refiners, manufacturers and other companies could comply with the new emissions limits by buying and trading a limited supply of allowances to spew the substances. (chron.com)".

After reading the above, I thought I would go to Sen. Hutchison's website to see what she actually had said on the subject. I found there a 21-page report, entitled, "Climate Change Legislation: A $3.6 Trillion Gas Tax". I read through that report and subsequently gave EIN News high commendation for reporting what Sen. Hutchison meant to say rather than what she actually said.

Notice that the Hutchison report uses the word "tax". It does not appear in the EIN News version. Rather, the News version refers to "costs". I hate to see a Senator confuse taxes with mandated costs, but that is exactly what appears in the Hutchison report. For the uninitiated lay person, a tax is usually a percentage of a dollar amount, or a dollar per unit valuation, which goes to a segment of government as revenue. A mandated cost is a dollar amount, which a person, industry, or group is designated by government to pay for the purchase of equipment, processing, etc. to accomplish a stated purpose. A mandate generally increases the cost of doing business, but that cost can usually be transferred to the customer. Such is the case with the considered legislation for climate control.

There is a tax planned as part of climate control legislation, but that involves specifically "Cap and Trade". Government will take a portion of the fees as revenue. However, this is not to be confused with major costs to industry for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration, all of which cost must be passed on to the public. This latter is what Sen. Hutchison is referring to as a "tax", but in reality is a price increase caused by government mandate of carbon dioxide sequestration.

The other major point that bothers me, and which EIN News also did not address, is the ridiculousness on which the carbon dioxide sequestration mandate will be based. I have asked time and again for scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming and have had no takers. My scientific analysis shows that there is no basis for the assumption that increases of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere lead to global warming and no one seems willing to challenge it. Is this a sound basis on which to apply a government mandate which will likely lead to several trillion dollars in wasted assets?