The number "60" is causing me to lose a bit of sleep. That happens to be the number I wore on my scrawny back when I played football in my high school days. I had nightmares then of the coach yelling my number for screwing up and missing a tackle.

The number "60" is also causing nightmares now, but for a different reason. It’s the number of votes needed to bring a bill up for debate in the United States Senate. As such, it represents the last chance to stop the economic suicide called "cap-and- trade." Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) recently introduced their bill in the Senate. It does little but replicate the lunacy of the House-passed version.

The bill is also "cap-and-tax" though its supporters reject that description. However, the bill will tax carbon emissions in an effort to address global warming. It is without question the largest single tax increase in the history of Planet Earth. You and I will pay this in many ways, mostly through higher costs of everything that involves the burning of fossil fuels. Hmmmmm, let’s see. That’s nearly every darn thing on the market. Some of it, though, we can’t do without. If this legislation passes, it will cost more to fill your car, heat your home and buy your food. Food manufacturers will pass along the cost of processing, shipping and retailing your food.

Averages can be deceiving, but the average cost for each American family is projected at $1,761. If you had to actually write a check for that, voluntarily, would you? For that, you would get promises for future reductions in carbon emissions in this country, not worldwide. The U.S. will lose economic activity, because we will be pricing ourselves out of the market with this tax built into everything we produce. I can imagine business leaders in China trying to hide their glee as they fire up another coal plant to take the markets we surrender.

Then there’s the farmer. Agriculture is a big user of fossil fuels. There’s no way yet discovered to raise a crop without crossing the field in a tractor or combine, burning diesel in the process. So why doesn’t the farmer just pass those costs along? He can’t. The system for pricing commodities involves many sellers and relatively few buyers. The price is what it is. The farmer has two choices: take the price offered, or keep the crop. It may take a few years to sort it out, but there is very little question that passing cap-and-trade will eventually make the U.S. an importer of most of its food. Other nations will gladly supply it, and burn more fossil fuels while doing so.

There are plans for carbon credits that farmers can earn by planting trees, practicing minimum tillage and other things. None of these combined come anywhere near offsetting the staggering costs Texas farmers would face if cap-and-trade becomes law. Though the U.S. leads the world in per capita carbon emissions, there are other countries that emit more. I just mentioned China, the world leader in total emissions. We use more energy per person because we collectively and individually sought to improve our standard of living, and we have an economic system that makes it possible. Some Americans feel guilty about our success. I prefer to enjoy it and resent those who insist we fall on our sword.

Bottom line? There is no way "cap- and-trade" in the U.S. alone can impact climate change. Not even by a tenth of a degree in temperature. For this, we will potentially cripple our economy. For this, we will risk a food supply grown offshore. For this, we will drive down our standard of living.

That number "60" is getting scarier every day. Why are we still seriously considering this?