Three days ago, the Libertarian Party published a press release condemning the then pending Lieberman-Warner Senate bill, in which LP Media Coordinator Andrew Davis denounced the bill as an absurd attempt to micromanage the environment. Yesterday, Bob Barr issued his own press release on the same bill, focusing on the speculative nature of climate change fears and the economic impact of the act under consideration. Full release follows:
June 5, 2008 2:37 pm EST
Atlanta, GA — The Senate is now debating the Lieberman-Warner bill to restrict energy use. “This legislation would sacrifice our economic future, and particularly that of poorer Americans, for virtually no environmental gain,” warns Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.
Despite the many predictions of doom, “the science of climate change remains highly complex,” he says. There has been no warming over the last decade and scientists disagree over how much warming is likely in the future.
To respond to purely speculative problems, Lieberman-Warner would mandate an emission cut of 70 percent by 2050, a virtual impossibility. “It would be hard enough to hold energy use constant with a growing population,” he notes. “every additional person needs food, transportation, and housing.”
Energy prices would soar. Hundreds of thousands or millions of jobs would be lost. Barr points to a study by the Congressional Budget Office which warns that the Senate bill would hike energy costs $1300 per household, effectively a $1 trillion tax hike over the next decade. “Estimates of the potential GDP loss run into the trillions of dollars,” he explains.
The legislation also “would create a monster bureaucracy to run the system,” warns Barr. Sen. Lieberman estimates that the new Climate Change Credit Corporation would have as much as $7 trillion in grants to give away, which, says Barr, would set up “an unprecedented special interest gold rush.”
Yet climatologists like Dr. Patrick Michaels figure that Lieberman-Warner would cut potential future warming by only .013 degrees (Celsius), “an amount hard to even measure,” says Barr. It makes far more sense “to adapt to challenges as they develop than to commit economic suicide to prevent problems that are unlikely to occur.”
Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, where he served as a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, as Vice-Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and as a member of the Committee on Financial Services. Prior to his congressional career, Barr was appointed by President Reagan to serve as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, and also served as an official with the CIA.
Since leaving Congress, Barr has been practicing law and has teamed up with groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union to actively advocate every American citizens’ right to privacy and other civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. Along with this, Bob is committed to helping elect leaders who will strive for smaller government, lower taxes and abundant individual freedom.
Barr and Davis can both take heart today, as the bill failed a procedural hurdle this morning and was pulled from consideration.
Sunshinebatman:
Your position is the same as the person who announces that they cannot have cancer, because they do not want radiation treatment. Hopefully, they do not have cancer, but not liking the treatment does not tell the cells whether or not they are malignant. If the problem is real, an appropriate libertarian answer is to advocate for solutions that actually work, such as allowing the market to price gasoline off the market, as it is now doing.
Pro-poverty green fascism? Pro-death? Give me a break.
Obama/McCain’s green fascism is what’s full of hate, Phillies. This is about energy rationing. That’s what Bob Barr is speaking against. Take a stand against the pro-poverty green fascism of Obama/McCain/Lieberman/Warner, Phillies. Stop giving aid and comfort to these Malthusian pro-death monsters.
This is what happens when you choose as a candidate a man who chose not to debate his Libertarian opponents, namely he turns out to have interesting points of view on topics to which many Americans are sensitive.
The issue is an underlying problem the Republican Party of Bigotry has. Because they must support the positions of their paymasters, they cannot follow their usual instincts and call for a government solution. The only Republican alternative to socialism is to sit there spinning lies to claim that there is no global warming.
There is no legitimate excuse for our National Party to have issued the sort of know-nothing anti-intellectual press release that it set forth parallel to the candidate action. What is the point of having a libertarian party national press system, if it serves as an echo box for right wing hate radio?
Ross, it is irresponsible for all of us to forget that we are the government.
Barr is trying to make the point that more government is not the answer. I agree that by omission, he seems to discredit actual problems which science has proven to exist. There is some hype both by those who demand a solution to global warming and those who insist there is no such thing as harm to the environment thru our present market realities.
Unfortunately, too many believers in the market overlook the fact that some profit seekers don’t care who is harmed in their pursuit of profit. He needs to make it clear that those who harm others must be held accountable.
This is ridiculous. Not only does this ignore the science, but it replaces it with its own unfounded assertions (no warming in the past 10 years?). What people like this fail to realize is that we don’t have a choice about our economy with this issue. We will either voluntarily ease it into the oil-less, fossil fuel-less future, or it will hit that future and crash and burn. Just look at what $130 barrel oil is doing to the economy. It’s predicted that in the next 7 years oil will be at or over $200 a barrel. It’s irresponsible to think that the only institution capable of handling a situation like this – the government – should not take responsibility.