What's Wrong with 'Cap and Trade'?
COMMENT: The Cap and Trade bill passed the house 219-212. Now the battle moves to the U.S. Senate.
See: LIGHTS OUT
Watch:: John Boenher Exposes Some of the Trash Crammed into
Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade Climate Bill HR2454
Barack Obama promised that he won't raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. He neglected to mention that this tax exemption will go only to those who don't use electricity, gasoline, heating oil, or natural gas.
The truth of the matter is that Obama will raise taxes on practically all middle-class Americans. But that's not all; in addition to new taxes on all those necessities (just think of all the appliances in your home that use electricity), he will drastically reduce our standard of living. Read more here
New climate strategy: track the world's wealthiest
WASHINGTON, July 6 (Reuters) - To fairly divide the climate change fight between rich and poor, a new study suggests basing targets for emission cuts on the number of wealthy people, who are also the biggest greenhouse gas emitters, in a country.
Since about half the planet's climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. As it stands now, under the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, rich countries shoulder most of the burden for cutting the emissions that spur global warming, while developing countries -- including fast-growing economies China and India -- are not required to curb greenhouse pollution. Rich countries, notably the United States, have said this gives developing countries an unfair economic advantage; China, India and other developing countries argue that developed countries have historically spewed more climate-warming gases, and developing countries need time to catch up. Read more here
Climate change cure plan hurts least among us
Kenneth W. Chilton
For the past two years, Congress has been considering legislation to address global warming. The latest version, the Waxman-Markey climate bill, has been approved by the House and seems dangerously close to being enacted into law. For American families struggling to keep their heads above water, the cure will be worse than the disease.
This push to impose what is, in essence, an energy tax is out-of-step with the views of the American people. Congress appears to be convinced that predictions from computer models of high levels of global warming 50 to 100 years in the future are unquestionably accurate. But the latest Gallup poll on global warming finds that 41 percent of Americans now believe that global warming is "generally exaggerated." Thirty 30 percent said they thought that future warming was exaggerated as recently as 2006.
Economists are trained to ask unpopular questions and enjoy a well-deserved reputation as wet blankets as a result. The question to ask about reducing any environmental "pollutant" is, How clean is clean enough? Read more here.
Cap and trade, with handouts and loopholes
The first climate-change bill with a chance of passing is weaker and worse than expected
AL GORE calls it “one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress”. Joe Barton, a Republican congressman and global-warming sceptic, says it will put the American economy in a straitjacket. For something that practically no one has read, the American Clean Energy and Security Act provokes heated debate. It would establish a cap-and-trade system for curbing carbon-dioxide emissions, thus transforming the way Americans use energy.
President Barack Obama has long argued that America should join Europe in regulating planet-cooking carbon. But he has left the details to Congress. And the negotiations to craft a bill that might actually pass have not been pretty. The most straightforward and efficient approach to reducing carbon emissions—a carbon tax—was never seriously considered. Voters do not like to hear the word “tax” unless it is followed by the word “cut”.
So Mr Obama proposed something very similar to a carbon tax, albeit slightly more cumbersome. Industries that emit carbon dioxide would have to buy permits to do so. A fixed number of permits would be auctioned each year. The permits would be tradable, so firms that found ways to emit less than they were entitled to could sell some of their permits to others. The system would motivate everyone to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective way. It would raise energy prices, which is the point, but it would also raise hundreds of billions of dollars, most of which Mr Obama planned to give back to voters. Alas, that plan looks doomed.
On May 15th Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic point-men on climate change in the House of Representatives, unveiled a bill that would give away 85% of carbon permits for nothing, with only 15% being auctioned. The bill’s supporters say this colossal compromise was necessary to win the support of firms that generate dirty energy or use a lot of it, and to satisfy congressmen from states that mine coal or roll steel. Read more here.
EPA: Cap-and-Trade Bill Coult Hurt U.S. Manufacturing. Send Factory Jobs Overseas
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.
The policy, under certain scenarios, for example, “can cause domestic production … to shift abroad,” reads the EPA analysis, and result in greater greenhouse gas emissions in countries that do not have similar cap-and-trade rules.
Further, the EPA’s Apr. 20 preliminary analysis of the bill, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.), shows that the plan would reduce U.S. manufacturing capacity 0.3 percent by 2020 and by nearly 1.5 percent by 2050.
Had the bill not been revised late last week after negotiations between industrial state Democrats and Waxman and Markey, U.S. manufacturing reportedly would have shrunk 0.9 percent by 2020. Read more here.
This legislation will raise energy prices on American consumers, will cause job loss and will put the
Members of Congress are considering several bills designed to combat climate change. Chief among them is Senate bill 2191--America's Climate Security Act of 2007--spearheaded by Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Warner (R-VA). This bill would set a limit on the emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas.
Since energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, 85 percent of which comes from these fossil fuels, S. 2191 represents an extraordinary level of economic interference by the federal government. For this reason, it is important for policymakers to have a sense of the economic impacts of S. 2191 that would go hand in hand with any possible environmental benefits. This Center for Data Analysis (CDA) report describes and quantifies those economic impacts.
Read more here
On March 31, Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman released a discussion draft of legislation that contains a study to implement a cap-and-trade system, or more accurately: “cap and tax” to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and require that an increasing share of U.S. electricity supply comes from “renewable” sources of energy like solar or wind power. A brief analysis of the bill can be viewed here. In addition to the Waxman proposal, President Obama’s FY 2010 budget calls for a massive cap and tax proposal that would raise $640 billion in new taxes on American businesses. In light of speculation that the House may consider some form of legislation involving a cap and tax scheme in the next month, the RSC has prepared the following document
What is Cap and Tax?
A cap and trade system sets a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect would amount to rationing emissions from fossil fuels that produce carbon dioxide. Essentially, the federal government would set some sort of cap on total carbon dioxide emissions and establish a yet to be defined carbon allowance on each utility or company (also undefined what companies would be subject to an allowance). Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by the allowance may trade credits to other companies that exceed the allowance. Many conservatives commonly call this proposal “cap and tax”. Read more here.
U.S. Congressman Michele Bachmann: Lost jobs, big hikes in your bills--that's cap and trade
Low- and middle-income Americans will pay dearly for this Democratic idea
By MICHELE BACHMANN
Last update: April 7, 2009 - 6:58 PM
President Obama has repeatedly said he will not raise taxes on low- and middle-income families, yet his policies do not match his rhetoric. Take for instance, a new tax he has proposed on the use of energy. It's called cap-and-trade or, more appropriately, cap-and-tax. The tax would require energy producers and businesses to pay to emit carbon emissions in the hope of reducing greenhouse gases.
The Democrats need the revenue this will generate to pay for their expensive agenda. But getting it this way would be shortsighted because it will cost far more in the long run than it will bring in. While the president originally estimated that implementing this plan would cost $646 billion over eight years, his deputy director for the National Economic Council, Jason Furman, recently stated that it could cost up to three times that -- bringing the cost closer to $2 trillion. Read more here
The 2009 Energy Bill: Anti-Market and Anti-Consumer
On March 31, Chairman Henry Waxman (D–CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward Markey (D–MA) of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee introduced draft legislation that includes clean energy investment, energy efficiency mandates, a cap-and-trade program, and protectionist policies that will supposedly help the consumer cope with higher energy prices.
Presented as a comprehensive energy bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) offers nothing more than subsidies and mandates for unsuccessful, unproven energy sources coupled with taxes on reliable energy sources that falsely claim to stimulate the economy by investing in clean technology and creating green jobs. This government-centric approach will destroy jobs and drive up energy prices for years to come. Read more here.
Environmentalists Say 'Cap-and-Trade' Is Designed to Drive up Energy Costs and Redistribute Wealth
(CNSNews.com) - President Obama’s “cap and trade” plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is specifically designed to drive up energy prices and redistribute wealth, according to a coalition of environmental, union, and liberal activist groups that is pushing for Congress to enact the proposal this year.
The plan would also redistribute wealth by taking revenue earned by the government in auctioning off carbon-emission permits and giving some of it in rebates to lower income households to offset the increased energy prices they would pay. The rest of the revenue would be used to subsidize the development of alternative “green” energy sources. Read more here.
Wednesday, April 22nd at 9:21AM EDT
This week, as the stock market continues its perilous slide towards an unknown abyss; the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin hearings on a national energy tax bill that will cost every American household $3,128 a year for the “right” to emit carbon dioxide.
The discussion draft of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) has four primary objectives (a renewable energy production mandate; improving energy efficiency; a cap and tax on carbon emissions; and creating “green collar” jobs) with one common thread tying them all together—central government planning.
ACES is nothing more than a veiled attempt to bring more of the private sector underneath big government’s tent while creating a $1.3 trillion slush fund for liberal social agendas under the guise of environmental do-goodism.
Most importantly, for a cap and tax bill to be effective and produce the goals of carbon emission reductions outlined in ACES (83 percent reduction of 2005 levels by 2050); energy is going to have to get expensive—oppressively expensive. Even President Obama admitted cap and tax bill would cause electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket.” Read more here.
Glenn Beck: GORE will make billions off Cap n Trade
June 3, 2009
GLENN: Steve Milloy is with us now. Steve Milloy is the guy who wrote Green Hell, and he says that Al Gore has lied to the House energy subcommittee. The reason why we bring this up is there is the global warming bill that is happening in Washington and I mean, you just know all of this stuff is going to happen anyway, you just know it's going to go through. We haven't had a real debate on anything in this country and he says that he's been lying in the House energy subcommittee. Steve, welcome to the program. What was he lying?
MILLOY: Hey, Glenn. What he's lying about is financial interest in cap and trade. You know, when he testified in the Senate in January, no one asked him about his financial interest in cap and trade. When he testified in the House in April, Marsha Blackburn from Tennessee and Steve Scalise from Louisiana tried to ask him, but he deflected both questions to Marsha Blackburn. He denied that he had a financial interest in cap and trade and that if he ever did make any money, he was going to give it away. To Steve Scalise, he pretended like he had never heard of Goldman Sachs even though he has business dealings with Goldman Sachs. And just yesterday we've learned that Al Gore's firm has invested $6 million in a software company that's going to make cap and trade software, software to help companies keep track of their greenhouse gas emissions, and the CEO of this company says if cap and trade goes through, this software is going to go from a $2 1/2 billion market to a $25 million market. So Al Gore is investing millions to make billions at our expense. Read more here.