If we take this route, we would eventually have the tools to cut carbon emissions, instead of misguided near-term initiatives like RGGI where an attempt to meet even the modest targets will only disrupt energy markets at great cost to consumers and the economy as whole. Programs to curb other GHGs can proceed such as measures to reduce methane releases from coal mines, but it is absurd to impose any meaningful limits on carbon emissions when so much of our energy comes from coal.
Any time the government is mandating something and creates an extra burden on business, it becomes another regulatory tax and raises costs.
'San Franciscans have a history of voting their social conscience as long as someone else writes the check.’… He said consumers would be hurt, predicting that restaurants would raise prices… The higher prices, he said, might cause some restaurants to lose business — and perhaps close. ‘There’s no such thing as a free lunch on something like this.’
The Controller estimates that this bad idea will cost taxpayers up to $1 million to implement, not including lost welfare recipient work hours, and an unknown amount for city workers not currently eligible for sick time. Add to that the hundreds of jobs and the millions of dollars in sales taxes that will be lost to surrounding cities when diners and shoppers go elsewhere to save money.
Proposition F is another job-killing attack on San Francisco's economic engine that will raise prices for all who shop in the City.
Everybody agrees that carbon limits will force up electricity prices steadily far into the future. The disagreement is over how much the costs will go up….That is unnerving for Massachusetts, which now has the nation's highest electric power bills. However, the bigger impact could be on the cost to industries that threatens the loss of jobs.
But the governors of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont are still in the compact, ready to impose a heavy economic burden on their citizens.
While the states signing on the dotted line will trumpet this proposal, the economic reality ... ought to be a bucket of icy cold New England water. [Now consumers will be] paying even higher prices.
And if you like socialized medicine, you will love this government bureaucracy under [then-Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee] Al Gore that will actually cost seniors who get $500 a year in prescription drugs right now -- it will end up costing seniors more money and take away control from those seniors.
The ordinance would cost the city [Chicago] nearly $20 million per year. The city would spend more than 20% of this amount ($4.2 million) on the administrative costs of certification, monitoring, and enforcement of the ordinance. This $20 million cost would require a permanent tax increase on citizens of Chicago.
