The Cellar
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Cap and Trade (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=20544)

TheMercenary 06-25-2009 11:24 AM
Cap and Trade
 
Interesting commentary from the WSJ:

Quote:
The Cap and Tax Fiction
Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

TheMercenary 06-25-2009 11:28 AM
This is transparency????? What's the rush? What is hidden and what are they hiding?

Will Congress Read Bills Before Voting?

Quote:
Last month, when Republicans tried to stall energy legislation with hundreds of amendments, Democrats hired a speed reader to get through them all. Now, with Democratic leadership barreling through its hefty agenda this summer, it looks as if the speed reader's services may be needed once more.

Various grassroots organizations are blasting Congress for not taking the time to properly consider the energy bill or health care reform -- two very significant pieces of legislation.

Let Freedom Ring, a non-profit, grassroots organization that supports a conservative agenda, announced an initiative today urging members of Congress to sign a pledge to read and give citizens the opportunity to read any health care reform legislation before voting on it.

"For something as significant as health care reform, which influences 16 percent to 17 percent of GDP, I think it is important for legislators to know what they're voting on, and not have lobbyists and staff members be the only ones who know what's in there," said Colin Hanna, Let Freedom Ring president.

The pledge was distributed to members of Congress on Tuesday, and Hanna has so far received signatures from Senators James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). Certainly, Hanna said, it would be in the members' best interests to sign it.

"I can assure you, legislators will be held accountable if there are parts in there their constituents find objectionable," he said.

Meanwhile, the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit with the goal of increasing government transparency, is raising similar concerns about the energy bill that the House of Representatives is slated to vote on Friday.

With a full House vote just days away, the authors of the deal are still negotiating the details, the New York Times has reported. In a measure as complex as the energy bill -- which consists of around 1,000 pages -- the details can make a big difference.

"The fastest speed-readers and the most intelligent minds can't make informed decisions with that much time. How can Congress?" Sunlight Foundation Engagement Director Jake Brewer said today in a statement. "The problem here is the bill wasn't developed in the open in a committee, so no one -- including those members of Congress not on the Energy Committee -- knows how this latest version was created."

The foundation points out that while the bill, formally called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, was 946 pages long last week, it has ballooned to 1,201 pages in recent days with little explanation for how or why. The group is supporting a bill introduced last week that would require the House to post all non-emergency legislation online 72 hours before debate begins.

Hanna said Congress could benefit by keeping legislation simpler.

"Legislation has become so complex, you can really make the arugment the system the framers devised is broken," he said. "Most bills are voted upon without those voting understanding much of what's in it."

That's when members are forced to resort to speed readers. "It makes a mockery of the process," Hanna said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06...y5110850.shtml

TheMercenary 06-26-2009 02:06 PM
Get out your wallets. I am just glad I don't live where it snows.

House Democrats win key test vote on climate bill

Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday on sweeping legislation to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included "the largest tax increase in American history."
The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation to the floor, and 30 Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked.


The legislation would impose limits for the first time on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution from power plants, factories and refineries. It also would force a shift from coal and other fossil fuels to renewable and more efficient forms of energy. Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs, but disagreed widely on the impact on consumers.

President Barack Obama has made the measure a top priority of his first year in office. The president, along with White House aides and House Democratic leaders, scrambled for the votes to assure passage. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation.

The Senate has yet to act on the measure, and a major struggle is expected.

In the House, the bill's fate depended on the decisions of a few dozen fence-sitting Democrats, mainly conservatives and moderates from contested districts who feared the political ramifications of siding with the White House and their leadership on the measure.

Democrats left little or nothing to chance. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., confirmed by the Senate on Thursday to an administration post, put off her resignation from Congress until after the final vote on the climate change bill.

"The bill contains provisions to protect consumers, keep costs low, help sensitive industries transition to a clean energy economy and promote domestic emission reduction efforts," the White House in a statement of support for the legislation.

Republicans saw it differently.

This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," said Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.

While the bill would impose a "cap-and-trade" system that would force higher energy costs, Republicans for weeks have branded it an energy tax on every American.

But Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., said there was a "moral imperative to be good stewards of the earth."

The legislation, totaling about 1,200 pages, would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and about 80 percent by the next century.

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory caps.

Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants. It would distribute pollution allowances that could be bought and sold, depending on whether a facility exceeds the cap or makes greater pollution cuts than are required.

Obama on Thursday called it "a vote of historic proportions ... that will open the door to a clean energy economy" and green jobs. "It will create millions of new jobs," Pelosi insisted.

Both Obama and Pelosi preferred to focus on the economic issues rather than on what environmentalists view as the urgency of reducing carbon emissions blamed for global warming.

The Rust Belt coal-state Democrats who have been sitting on the fence worry about how to explain their vote for higher energy prices to people back home—and how the vote might play out in elections next year.

Republicans have been quick to exploit those concerns.

"Democratic leaders are poised to march many moderate Democrats over a cliff ... by forcing them to vote for a national energy tax that is unpopular throughout the heartland," Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said.

There was widespread agreement that under this cap-and-trade system, the cost of energy would almost certainly increase. But Democrats argued that much of the impact on taxpayers would be offset by other provisions in the bill. Low-income consumers would qualify for credits and rebates to cushion the impact on their energy bills.

Two reports issued this week—one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency—seemed to support that argument.

The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year; the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.

Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher cost to the economy and to individuals.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

classicman 06-26-2009 02:53 PM
Quote:
Hosted by Google Back to Google News
Questions and answers about the US climate bill

By DINA CAPPIELLO and ERIC CARVIN – 16 hours ago

Cap-and-trade? Offsets? Pollution credits? The climate bill under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives tackles global warming with new limits on pollution and a market-based approach to encourage more environmentally friendly business practices. But what exactly do the proposed rules mean, and how would they work?

Some questions and answers about the bill, a top legislative priority for President Barack Obama:

Q: What's the purpose of this legislation?

A: To reduce the gases linked to global warming and to force sources for power to shift away from fossil fuels, which when burned, release heat-trapping gases, and toward cleaner sources of energy such as wind, solar and geothermal.

Q: How does the bill accomplish this?

A: By placing the first national limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases from major sources like power plants, refineries and factories. This limit effectively puts a price on the pollution, raising the cost for companies to continue to use fuels and electricity sources that contribute to global warming. This gives them an incentive to seek cleaner alternatives.

Q: Is this the "cap-and-trade" idea that has been in the news?

A: Yes. The first step in a cap-and-trade program sets a limit on the amount of gases that can be released into the atmosphere. That is the cap. Companies with facilities that are covered by the cap will then receive permits for their share of the pollution, an annual pollution allowance. This bill initially would give the bulk of the permits away for free to help ease costs, but they still would have value because there would be a limited supply. Companies that do not get a big enough allowance to cover their pollution would either have to find ways to reduce it, which can be expensive, or buy additional permits from companies that have reduced pollution enough to have allowances left over. That is the trade. Companies typically would pick the cheaper option: reducing pollution or buying permits. They also have a third choice: They can invest in pollution reductions made elsewhere, such as farms that capture methane or plant trees. These are known as offsets.

Q: So the idea is to try to reduce the overall level of pollution, regardless of whether, say, a particular factory reduces emissions?

A: That is true in the beginning. But as the cap gets lower and lower, reaching an 83 percent reduction by 2050, eventually all polluters will have to reduce. It is merely a question of when. For instance, it will be very tough for coal plants to reduce emissions at the outset of the program because the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide is not yet commercially available. It probably is 10 to 20 years away. So they will be buying offsets and buying allowances from other entities that will have an easier time.

Q: Do most environmentalists support this approach?

A: Most do, at least broadly. Cap-and-trade has had success. Since 1990, the United States has had a cap-and-trade program for sulfur dioxide, the main culprit in acid rain. Democrats have had to make a lot of concessions to win votes for the current bill from lawmakers from coal, oil and farm states. Some liberal environmentalists think these concessions weaken the bill. For instance, the bill's sponsors have had to lower the cap — it originally called for a 20 percent cut by 2020 — to 17 percent. Research suggests that much deeper cuts will be needed globally to avert the most serious consequences of global warming.

Q: Who opposes this approach, and why?

A: Republicans, some farm groups, some environmentalists, the oil industry, which feels it has received too few free permits, and some moderate Democrats. They all worry about the cost and the loss of jobs if industries move to countries that do not have controls on greenhouse gases. The bill has provisions to prevent this, but there are questions whether they will work. Republicans call the bill a national energy tax on every American family. This is because, as industries spend money to reduce pollution or buy credits, they will pass on that cost to consumers, the people who turn on the lights or pump gas in their cars. Recent analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office show that the new rules eventually will cost the average household an extra $175 a year.

Q: Under the bill, what will happen to companies that do not follow the rules?

A: If they exceed their limit, they will have to pay a fine equal to twice the cap-and-trade price for each ton of pollution over the limit.

Q: Other than costs potentially being passed along to consumers, will this affect most Americans' day-to-day lives?

A: It fundamentally will change how we use, produce and consume energy, ending the country's love affair with big gas-guzzling cars and its insatiable appetite for cheap electricity. This bill will put smaller, more efficient cars on the road, swap smokestacks for windmills and solar panels, and transform the appliances you can buy for your home.

Q: How quickly will we notice these changes?

A: Some will occur more quickly than others. For instance, measures to boost energy efficiency in buildings and appliances are the low-hanging fruit that does not require major infrastructure changes or new technologies. Other changes are decades off and probably will come when the cap gets more stringent and permits get more expensive. For instance, the country can build more wind and more solar panels, but currently it lacks the transmission lines to move the energy they generate to population centers. As for cars: While more efficient models are a near-term reality, it will take a while to change out the fleet. Some people will continue driving 10-year-old gas guzzlers.

Q: What are the chances this bill will become law?

A: Both the Obama administration and Democrats want this bill passed by the end of the year, when negotiations for a new international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases get under way in Copenhagen, Denmark. Even as Democrats hold the majority in Congress, it will not be easy to get this enacted. Many moderate Democrats from rural states and conservative districts are worried about the costs and complexity of the legislation when the economy is already weak. Very few Republicans, if any, are expected to support the bill. Approval of a climate bill in the Senate has been viewed as a long shot. Parts of the bill may need to be changed to secure approval in the Senate.

Q: Why is it so important to tackle global warming anyway?

A: Left untended, scientists say, global warming will cause sea levels to rise, increase storms and worsen air pollution. For these reasons, the Environmental Protection Agency recently concluded that six greenhouse gases pose dangers to human health and welfare. And politically, without U.S. action, developing countries like China probably will not agree to mandatory pollution limits.

TheMercenary 06-26-2009 04:07 PM
The inherent weakness in this plan is 1) It will only work if all companies participate. 2) How do they police the ones that participate or choose not to participate 3) If they rely on self reporting it will fail. 4) How do they conduct enforcement of the private corps.

Flint 06-26-2009 04:09 PM
I'm a little fuzzy on the part between the 12th paragraph and the 48th paragraph.

Alluvial 06-26-2009 08:36 PM
You can't really call it a 'tax'. It's a cost increase related to Washington's attempt to wean industry off of fossil fuels. Isn't it?

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluvial (Post 577985)
You can't really call it a 'tax'. It's a cost increase related to Washington's attempt to wean industry off of fossil fuels. Isn't it?
Any costs they incur will be passed on to the consumer. And it ain't going to be cheap...

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 09:15 AM
June 24, 2009
CBO Grossly Underestimates Cost of Cap and Trade
by David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and Nicolas Loris
WebMemo #2503

Last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill that had proponents of the bill claiming Americans could save the planet for just $175 per household. That was the figure CBO estimated cap and trade would cost households in 2020 alone.[1]

Both the CBO's analysis and the subsequent legislation are troubled: The analysis grossly underestimates economic costs while the legislation will have virtually no impact on climate. Overall, there are a number of basic problems with CBO's analysis:

* Their allowance cost numbers do not add up;
* They ignore economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill; and
* The analysis is an accounting analysis, not an economic analysis.

Problems with Costs and Distribution of Allowances

The CBO's June 19 study projected that the allowance price--the price to emit carbon dioxide--will be $28 per ton of CO2 in 2020.[2] Since there are 5.056 billion tons of CO2 equivalent in the cap that year (the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases businesses are allowed to emit), this projection implies a $141 billion gross cost; however, CBO lists the cost as $91.4 billion. Although there were no changes to the bill between June 5 and June 19, the CBO projected allowance revenues of $119.7 billion, $129.7 billion, $136 billion, $145.6 billion, and $152.9 billion for the years 2015-2019. As the cap on carbon dioxide becomes more stringent, one would expect the allowance revenue to continue to climb, not dramatically decrease to $91.4 billion.[3]

The goal of a cap-and-trade program is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In order to realize such reductions, cap-and-trade programs establish absolute limits on total emissions of greenhouse gases. Before businesses in a covered sector can emit a greenhouse gas, they need to have the ration coupons (also known as allowances) for each ton emitted.The price a firm pays for these allowances, euphemistically referred to as "climate revenue," should be considered tax revenue. CBO mistakenly assumes that the government spending and distribution of allowance revenue is the dollar-for-dollar equivalent to a direct cash rebate to energy consumers--that is, that the carbon tax is not a tax if the government spends the money, which is simply preposterous.

Ignoring Economic Pain

Most problematic is the CBO's complete omission of the economic damage resulting from restricted energy use. As footnote 3 on page 4 of the CBO analysis reads, "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap. The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor."[4] In The Heritage Foundation's analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation, the GDP hit in 2020 was $161 billion (2009 dollars). For a family of four, that translates into $1,870--a pretty big chunk of change that the CBO is ignoring.

It is also worth noting that, of the 24 years analyzed by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), 2020 had the second lowest GDP loss. Furthermore, the CDA found that for all years the average GDP loss was $393 billion, or over double the 2020 hit. In 2035 (the last year analyzed by Heritage) the inflation adjusted GDP loss works out to $6,790 per family of four--and that is before they pay their $4,600 share of the carbon taxes.[5] The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an astounding $114,915 by 2035.[6]

An Accounting Analysis, Not an Economic One

The CBO analysis is an accounting analysis of the flow of allowance revenue; it is not an economic analysis of the true opportunity cost of the bill. The analysis's "net cost" is essentially the cost of producing offsets and other emissions reductions--a process similar to a company's chief financial officer doing a cash-flow analysis of one investment project. The CBO does not take into account the dynamic general equilibrium consequences of the much higher energy prices: There are serious economic impacts from the energy price increases that they ignore.

The CBO and Congress seem to assume that energy price increases can be mitigated by giving allowance revenue back to businesses and consumers. This is not how the economy works. Prices are merely an information signal about the relative scarcity of real resources that are being used. For example, if farmers use their land, labor, and equipment to produce offsets, instead of planting more food crops, the price of food will go up. Yet the CBO report ignores this reality.

The CBO analysis cannot be used to debate the economic cost versus economic benefit of the bill. Instead, it can be used only to follow the money of the allowance revenue so policymakers and the public can understand exactly how that piece of the legislation is being handled. There is value in keeping an accounting of this revenue flow in order to determine who is getting what, but CBO should make it clear that this is the limit of their analysis.

It is inappropriate to go beyond this analysis, for example, by comparing CBO's cost estimates to those of The Heritage Foundation, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, or even the EPA, as many Members of Congress are already doing. These Members are simply trying to compare two different cost concepts--accounting versus economic. Although the EPA's analysis is flawed for other reasons,[7] mostly because of unrealistic assumptions, they at least attempt to estimate the economic cost, which the CBO did not.

Higher Taxes and Economic Devastation in Return for ... Nothing?

Regardless of the CBO's cost estimates of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade program, the necessary second part of the question--what benefits do the costs generate?--remains unanswered. Americans will get almost nothing in exchange for these higher taxes, and the legislation will provide nothing for future generations except more debt and less economic opportunity. According to climatologist Chip Knappenberger, Waxman-Markey would moderate temperatures by only hundredths of a degree in 2050 and no more than two-tenths of a degree at the end of the century.[8] This does not sound like a great deal for the next generation--millions of lost jobs, trillions of lost income, 50-90 percent higher energy prices, and stunning increases in the national debt, all for undetectable changes in world temperature.

The CBO analysis of Waxman-Markey fails to take into account all the adverse effects that will ripple through the U.S. economy if cap and trade becomes law. CBO's grossly underestimated costs means Members of Congress will be grossly misinformed when voting on the legislation.

David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst for Energy Economics and Climate Change, and Karen A. Campbell, Ph.D., is Policy Analyst in Macroeconomics, in the Center for Data Analysis, and Nicolas Loris is a Research Assistant in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 10:06 AM
Liberty or Tyranny? Which is it?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...d_tyranny.html

Griff 06-27-2009 10:25 AM
Wait a minute, I thought cap and trade was for murder weapon disposal.

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 10:26 AM
hey check out this easy to read chart! It explains how it works.

http://www.uschamber.com/media/pdfs/waxmanmarkey.pdf

The red dots are regulations the federal government will need to promulgate, the blue dots are other mandates. The box in the middle is the administrative review act process that every one of the red dots would have to go through.

classicman 06-27-2009 11:28 AM
Quote:
Overall, there are a number of basic problems with CBO's analysis:

* Their allowance cost numbers do not add up;
* They ignore economic costs such as the decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) as a result of the bill; and
* The analysis is an accounting analysis, not an economic analysis.
I guess the beancounter mentality is alive and well. :sniggle, snork haggis:

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 11:34 AM
Haggismyassis! After I just read those articles I posted on the Global Warming thread now I am twice as pissed.

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18734&page=17

This one is on the Demoncratic majority in Congress. They are going to bankrupt this country.

slang 06-27-2009 02:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluvial (Post 577985)
You can't really call it a 'tax'.

Why not? Where is the money going? To the Feds? What else might one call this?

"–noun 1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand."

If you support this bill that's fine but let's not be euphemistic; it's a tax.

Alluvial 06-27-2009 03:57 PM
Actually I don't think that I support this bill. I'm not done reading about it yet, but ... I was considering the first definition of word "tax" given in your post.

slang 06-27-2009 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluvial (Post 578164)
Actually I don't think that I support this bill.

:thumb:


Too bad that Congress is going to pass it for anything short of 3 million torch and pitchfork wielding citizens storming DC.

Alluvial 06-27-2009 05:06 PM
I can't figure out what it is supposed to accomplish (besides the obvious, lower carbon emissions). Is it supposed to force industry to change to "green" energy sources?

I recieved a message from the Mississippi Manufacturers Assn. which says "Because Mississippi cannot utilize some of the alternative energy sources, this legislation will have a disproportionately negative effect on our state." I'm not real sure, but I think this means that our industries don't lend themselves to "green" energy sources. Is this going to be like the bricklayers going out of business when poured concrete came on the scene?

Oh yeah, I haz a pitchfork ... somewhere around here ...

slang 06-27-2009 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluvial (Post 578183)
I can't figure out what it is supposed to accomplish
1. To make the Feds richer than they'd ever dreamed possible.

2. To give the Feds control that they'd only dreamed possible.

3. To kill the economy flat, then build it back to a progressive utopia of socialism that it was truly intended to be. To give back Americas wealth to it's rightful owners.

What else would you like clarification on?

Alluvial 06-27-2009 05:54 PM
Seriously, though. What's the intent that they put on paper, the justification?

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluvial (Post 578187)
Seriously, though. What's the intent that they put on paper, the justification?
They have benchmarks for reducing carbon emissions. 2020 and 2050. The plan is to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy. It is all smoke and mirrors which will cost billions of dollars and have little to no effect on the environment. One of the biggest failure, and I have mentioned this numerous times, is that the other countries in the world are doing nothing, China and India have no such constraints and are not particpating in any such Cap and Trade regulations. Europe has no such regulations which use this process. They will continue with unregulated growth to secure their economic futures. We, on the otherhand will be spending billions if not trillions. And guess what, you are going to pay for it.

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 06:45 PM
Quote:
The 1,200 page bill -- formally known as the "American Clean Energy and Security Act" -- will reach into almost every corner of the U.S. economy. By putting a price on emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, the bill would affect the way electricity is generated, how homes and offices are designed, how foreign trade is conducted and how much Americans pay to drive cars or to heat their homes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124610499176664899.html

Alluvial 06-27-2009 06:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 578192)
They have benchmarks for reducing carbon emissions. 2020 and 2050. The plan is to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy.
Please forgive my ignorance, and thanks for your post. So, the regulations are going to tighten down on the emissions. Is that supposed to have two effects: one being reduced emissions and the other being industry seeking out other energy sources?

I'm wondering if this is supposed to be like carrot-and-stick without the carrot. Are we going to beat Big Industry until it switches to green energy? I just can't quite wrap my head around the logic (maybe there isn't any).

I've read the arguments about China et. al. and I certainly see the point. Isn't that what has played out already ... for example, some other countries don't have the strict environmental rules that the US does, so their products are cheaper?

I don't think we need to be totally lax about environmental issues but I think this is a bad bill, for several reasons.

I swear, just when you think one party is more st00pid than the other, they up and surprise ya.

ETA: yeah, I understood the part about the cost working its way down to the consumer.

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 06:53 PM
The money goes where???????????

Quote:
Section 201: National Energy Efficiency Building Codes

Section 201 of the Waxman-Markey Act calls for the development and adoption by state and local governments of a national energy efficiency code. A summary of the main provisions are as follows:

1. Establishes a “national energy efficiency building code” for residential and commercial buildings, sufficient to meet each of the national building code energy efficiency targets.

2. Sets energy efficiency targets for the national building code: “on the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, 30 percent reduction in energy use relative to a comparable building constructed in compliance with the baseline code…effective January 1, 2014, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2015, for commercial buildings, 50 percent reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code; and…January 1, 2017, for residential buildings, and January 1, 2018, for commercial buildings, and every 3 years thereafter, respectively, through January 1, 2029, and January 1, 2030, 5 percent additional reduction in energy use relative to the baseline code.”

3. If consensus based codes provides for greater reduction in energy use than is required under the ACESA, the overall percentage reduction in energy use provided by that successor code shall be the national building code energy efficiency target.

4. Requires that states and local governments comply with or exceed the national energy efficiency building code, and provides for enforcement mechanisms for states which are out of compliance.

The federalization of building codes has the potential to save consumers large amounts of money on their energy bills by enhancing the energy efficiency of buildings nationwide, as well as addressing the 38 percent of carbon emissions generated by buildings in a comprehensive manner. On the other hand, it represents a major shift in the balance of power over building and land use regulation. Traditionally, building codes, like almost all land use regulation in the United States has been a local (in some cases, state) issue. This makes for a patchwork of different codes across the nation. Indeed, thirteen states have no statewide commercial building codes, and fourteen states have no statewide residential building code.

Proponents of local control of regulatory authority argue that local government can more appropriately respond to local conditions and can experiment more freely with different types of regulations than would be possible at the federal level. On the other hand, federal control of building codes provide uniformity across the country for a problem which does not respect state and local borders, prevents local challenges to individual energy efficiency efforts (like AHRI v. City of Albuquerque) and, given the large number of states which do not have a current building code at all, provides more effective regulation of this important source of carbon emissions.

Section 131, 132: SEED funds

According to analysis completed by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy,

"allocations detailed in Section 782g direct 9.5 percent of allowances in 2012 (and decreasing amounts thereafter) to go into a State Energy and Environmental Development (SEED) account to be used by state and local governments for efficiency and renewables projects."


The allocation of SEED money will be at the discretion of local and state authorities.

One of the programs that can be funded by these allocation are Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Bonds. PACE bonds involve loans to commercial and residential property owners to finance energy retrofits. Through the interest generated on these bonds, a revolving fund is established to allow for even more retrofits to occur. Already, California and Missouri have announced plans to use funding from the Department of Energy State Energy Program to establish PACE bond programs. Look for more states to jump on the PACE bond bandwagon and use cap-and-trade revenue to fund similar programs.

Section 202: REEP Program

With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the Department of Energy’s State Energy Program received billons of dollars. Under the Waxman-Markey bill, the State Energy Program will again receive billions of dollars for more energy efficiency retrofits. From the Pew Center on Climate Change (PDF):

"This section requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) program to facilitate building retrofit programs for energy efficiency and efficient water use. Funding will be made available through REEP to the State Energy Programs for state and local efforts, including audits, incentives, technical assistance, and training. States are permitted to choose funding mechanisms, with options including credit support, such as interest rate subsidies or credit enhancement, providing initial capital, and allocating funds for utility programs."


The REEP program has not been created yet so it is unclear what the program will look like. Based on the DOE’s previous support for PACE bond programs when allocating ARRA funds, don’t be surprised to see even more of these programs established through REEP.

Green Act: H.R. 2336—Amendment to Waxman-Markey

On May 7, 2009, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) introduced H.R. 2336, the Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods Act of 2009 (“GREEN ACT”). According to Perlmutter’s office, “The GREEN Act provides incentives to lenders and financial institutions to provide lower interest loans and other benefits to consumers, who build, buy or remodel their homes and businesses to improve their energy efficiency and use of alternative energy.”

In essence, the Act:

1. Encourages energy efficiency in HUD housing by offering block grants and credit for energy improvements in the underwriting of mortgages;

2. Provides that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will have a duty to serve very low, low and moderate income communities while developing underwriting standards to facilitate a secondary market for energy-efficient and location efficient mortgages;

3. Requires federal banking regulators to establish incentives for the development and maintenance of “green banking centers” for the purpose of providing information to customers seeking information about acquiring green mortgages.

Interestingly, Perlmutter’s GREEN Act passed the full House of Representatives as part of HR 6899, the Comprehensive Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act in September 2008, but the Senate failed to take action on this legislation. The GREEN ACT was added this morning {at 3am} to the manager's amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill.
http://www.reuters.com/article/gwmBu...73327920090626

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 06:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alluvial (Post 578199)
Please forgive my ignorance, and thanks for your post. So, the regulations are going to tighten down on the emissions. Is that supposed to have two effects: one being reduced emissions and the other being industry seeking out other energy sources?

I'm wondering if this is supposed to be like carrot-and-stick without the carrot. Are we going to beat Big Industry until it switches to green energy? I just can't quite wrap my head around the logic (maybe there isn't any).

I've read the arguments about China et. al. and I certainly see the point. Isn't that what has played out already ... for example, some other countries don't have the strict environmental rules that the US does, so their products are cheaper?

I don't think we need to be totally lax about environmental issues but I think this is a bad bill, for several reasons.

I swear, just when you think one party is more st00pid than the other, they up and surprise ya.

ETA: yeah, I understood the part about the cost working its way down to the consumer.
It allows companies who have lots of money to buy the abiltiy to pollute more from companies who have less money and pollution credits.

I certainly support the investment and encouragement of green energy and renewable sources. But right now they are not really fully developed. I would rather put more money into the research than hammering industry and the consumer with taxes to force compliance.

Alluvial 06-27-2009 07:00 PM
Hmm. They go to tacking too many amendments on it, and the thing will die. Hopefully.

Where is your above info from? I'd like to read that article.

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 07:07 PM
Quote:
In a cap-and-trade program, the government determines which facilities or emissions are covered by the program and sets an overall emission target, or “cap,” for covered entities. This cap is the sum of all allowed emissions from all included facilities.
Once the cap has been set and covered entities specified, tradable emissions allowances (rights to emit) are distributed (either auctioned, or freely allocated, or some combination of these). Each allowance authorizes the release of a specified amount of greenhouse gas emissions, generally one ton of carbon
dioxide equivalent (CO2e).1 The total number of allowances is equivalent to the overall emissions cap (e.g., if a cap of one million tons of emissions is set, one million one-ton allowances will be issued). Covered entities must submit allowances equivalent
to the level of emissions for which they are responsible at the end of each of the program’s compliance periods.
Allowance trading occurs because firms face different costs for reducing emissions. For some emitters, implementing new, low-emitting technologies may be relatively inexpensive.
Those firms will either buy fewer allowances or sell their surplus allowances to firms that face higher emission control costs. Since a ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted from one source has the same warming effect as a ton emitted from any other, the location of a given emissions reduction does not matter. By giving firms a financial incentive to control emissions
and the flexibility to determine how and when emissions will be reduced, the capped level of emissions is achieved in a manner that minimizes overall program costs.
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Cap&Trade.pdf

Alluvial 06-27-2009 07:08 PM
Thanks.

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 07:13 PM
Potential Pitfalls of Cap and Trade:

Quote:
Advocates of the system like it because "the polluter pays." Setting aside for the moment the question of whether it is justifiable to call carbon dioxide a pollutant, [b]companies of course do not simply absorb these extra costs. Instead, they pass them on to their customers who are also, by and large, taxpayers. Not only does the taxpayer carry the cost of any cap and trade scheme, but their money also provides profit for a whole new industry: the new carbon trading sector, the middlemen who make the system work.[b/]

Unlike normal tradable commodities, carbon dioxide emissions can only be estimated, rather than quantified exactly. And it is only international agreements and national law that give these permits a price at all. The result is a system open to misuse, since all parties -- seller, middleman and buyer -- have an incentive and opportunity to manipulate the estimates. Sellers want to show how much they are reducing their emissions, buyers benefit from lower prices as more units come to market, and traders do good business in a buoyant market.

The biggest abuse began right at the start of the ETS when regulators handed out too many free permits. As a result, utilities companies made windfall profits by simply selling on large numbers of unneeded credits and not passing the savings on to their customers in the form of price cuts. Despite the EU's declared goal to dole out permits based on objective criteria, industry lobbying led to an overallocation. When push comes to shove, governments will always protect their national champions. The German government, for example, negotiated an easing of planned caps on emissions from cars to the advantage of manufacturers of higher-powered cars such as Mercedes-Benz and Porsche.

And this is in a bloc where the environmentalists have far more influence than in America. Translated across the Atlantic, any climate change bill will become the subject of the worst kind of pork-barrel politics riddled with loopholes for key industries before it becomes law.

This is already evident in the attitude of a significant number of Democratic Congressmen. Rather than back the bill, as many had assumed, they are looking for changes to protect powerful interests (and their own votes) in their constituencies. States with strong coal mining sectors are particularly vulnerable to cap and trade legislation, and, in the words of Democratic Representative Dennis Cardoza from California "the EPA under President Obama "doesn't get rural America." His Democratic colleague Tim Holden "I have grave concerns about where the administration is going on climate change."

There is another major problem with cap and trade: its lack of predictability. Prices vary considerably. On June 15, the right to emit a tonne of carbon dioxide cost €12.50. Since the inception of the ETS, this price has varied from below €10 to peaks of more than €30. While these fluctuations may encourage businesses to increase energy efficiency -- for which they will in any case receive a direct financial benefit -- it is of no help for long-term investment decisions to permanently reduce carbon emissions. For this, a significantly higher minimum price is needed, perhaps about $140 per tonne, according to a U.K. government-sponsored report from Cambridge university, due to be published shortly.

Given the system's inherent flaws, it comes as little surprise that the ETS didn't quite work as intended. According to European Commission figures, emissions from the 27 member states rose by 1.9% in the first three years of the regime. Following criticism, the caps for the period to 2012 were reduced for the majority of member states, but only to a little lower than actual emissions in 2005, and the evidence is that the recession is having a much more direct impact on emissions than the trading scheme (incidentally putting a lot of low-priced permits on the market).

Despite the system's questionable results, the costs are considerable. In 2006, individual business and sectors had to pay €24.9 billion for over one billion tones' worth of permits. The WorldWatch Institute estimates that the costs of running a trading system designed to meet the EU's Kyoto obligations at about $5 billion. The estimated costs of a trading system to meet the EU's own and far more demanding commitments of a 20% reduction (against a 1990 baseline) by 2020 are around $80 billion annually.

Substantial changes are planned for the European regime, with emissions caps to be set by a single EU body rather than national governments, more than half of permits to be auctioned, and the aviation sector and possibly shipping to be included. Household consumption and private transport cannot be included in the ETS as set up, although the idea of extending the concept to the allocation of personal carbon allowances is popular with some.

But these are only cosmetic changes to an inherently flawed system. The auctioning of permits may avoid overallocation but instead saddle industry with huge upfront costs. The entire scheme will remain vulnerable to political interference and thus likely fail to reduce carbon emissions. The only certainty is that it will hurt the economy and drive up energy costs.

If passed, the U.S. bill will probably commit to the headline figure of a 17% reduction (from a 2005 baseline) in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020. Before signing any bill which would reduce America's competitiveness for little real impact on emissions, President Obama may want to heed the warning of Europe's experience.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124587942001349765.html

TheMercenary 06-27-2009 08:12 PM
This sums it up quite nicely.

Cap and Trade; Big government is on a roll.

Quote:
The "climate change" bill or "cap and trade" legislation that recently passed the house will establish emissions standards for major industrial operations like utilities and manufacturers. Companies will have to purchase emissions credits to cover any excess over and above those standards. Revenue from the sale of credits will go partially to subsidize energy costs for the poor.

Here's the dilemma. If the program's stated intent is successful, and ten or twenty years from now we actually have an energy source that is comparable in cost, or even slightly higher than fossil fuels, with zero carbon emissions, subsidy money goes away. No emissions means no need to buy credits. No credits. No revenue. Something else will have to be taxed because politicians are not going to take back an entitlement, once it's been established.

This is not just bad policy from a free market standpoint. It's another opportunity for the government to create a pool of money for it to control. Just as TARP has become a revolving line of credit for the "too big to fail", the new energy subsidies will be permanent, even if their initial source of revenue goes away.

The new strategy for implementing big government is not to necessarily take control of individual industries. It's much more efficient to take control of the overall cash flow through the system. The tools are targeted taxes and credits, geographical monopoly licenses, government loans and equity purchases, creating a federal "risk manager" and subsidies for things like health insurance, housing, food and energy. Businesses become more and more dependent on the government to engage in trade and consumers become more dependent on the government for the most basic of necessities. Big government makes itself the biggest of the "too big to fail".

The Soviet Union tried this strategy. It didn't work out too well in the long run. China has fared a bit better. I guess that's where big government proponents get their inspiration. It remains to be seen whether Americans can be corralled as effectively as the Chinese. This is not a competition between capitalism and socialism. Capitalism has been taken off the table. This is a demonstration of global socialism. Perhaps something we have to witness play out before we can get back on the right road.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1087-Denve...t-is-on-a-roll

Alluvial 06-28-2009 11:37 AM
Its seems as though the cost is hard to pin down. MIT did a study in 2007 on cap-and-trade. Note that their scenario is different from Waxman-Markey somewhat.

Here is a link to the MIT study (big pdf). One scientist who worked on that study has said that his estimate is $800 per year, per household.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Reilly
The present value cost per average current household through 2050, as corrected, is about $800. Again, this estimate includes the direct effects of higher energy prices, the cost of measures to reduce energy use, the higher price of goods that are produced using energy, and impacts on wages and returns on capital. The cost per household will of course vary from our hypothetical average family depending on the household’s circumstances, though the burden on lower income households can be offset through the use of auction revenues.
From here.

TheMercenary 06-28-2009 11:39 AM
$800 per...?

Alluvial 06-28-2009 11:48 AM
Averaged over the years 2015 to 2050, annual cost for a family of four (original estimate was $340, changed to $800):

Quote:
From data in the report we can calculate the economic cost in each year (percentage loss times the base welfare level in each year), and divide this by the US population, and then multiply this amount by four to estimate the cost for a representative family of four. We further apply an economic discount rate of 4% to get the Net Present Value (NPV) cost in each year in the future. Doing this we find that the NPV cost per family of four starts at about $75 in 2015, rises to nearly $510 by 2025, and then falls to $205 by 2050. We can calculate the average annual NPV cost per family by summing over all years and dividing by the number of years, and this shows the average annual net present value cost to be about $340 - only a part of which would be actual energy bill increases.
From here.

sugarpop 06-28-2009 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 578055)
Any costs they incur will be passed on to the consumer. And it ain't going to be cheap...
And therein lies the fault of the plan. I am all for punishing big energy companies that refuse to change, but it needs to be done in such a way so they CANNOT pass the expense along to the consumers. The consumers want change. Consumers want clean energy. It isn't the consumers fault these people are still building dirty coal plants, when they could be building clean ones.

IMO they are going about it all wrong anyway. They are making it too fucking complicated. All they need to do, is subsidize companies that create clean energy plants (like solar or wind, etc.), and subsudize people solarizing their homes, or putting in personal wind mills, or whatever works in different areas, and then making energy companies buy back the excess energy at a fair rate. That would empower the people of this country, it would allow people who can't afford solar panels (or whatever) to have them, it wouldn't really need the cooperation of big energy, and everyone wins. Big energy gets clean power to sell back to customers, people who choose to participate will get a drastic reduction in energy costs, and people who create green energy and green energy jobs get start-up reduction in costs. It's a win-win. Of course big energy companies won't like it because it will end up cutting into their profits, but who cares. Maybe it would force them to change and get with the program.

sugarpop 06-28-2009 06:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 578202)
It allows companies who have lots of money to buy the abiltiy to pollute more from companies who have less money and pollution credits.

I certainly support the investment and encouragement of green energy and renewable sources. But right now they are not really fully developed. I would rather put more money into the research than hammering industry and the consumer with taxes to force compliance.
And that in itself is incredibly shortsighted and STUPID. Do they honestly think speculaters won't find a way to get rich while screwing the rest of the country if they TRADE pollution credits? And it fucking really pisses me off that someone could just buy their way into polluting as much they want. :mad2:

sugarpop 06-28-2009 07:45 PM
I watched this show called Eco-Tech (on the Science Network) a few weeks ago about new alternative energy. Merc, it most definitely is developed, maybe not completely-all technology changes as innovation develops-but it is proven enough to start building the plants.

Apparently in South Florida, they have been developing turbines that will work under water, and are slated to be put in sometime over the next year or two. They are developing them to have the least impact on marine life. They are also looking at pumping the cold water from the bottom of the ocean to help cool all the waterfront condos and hotels. They think they can supply all the energy needs of the state with this technology.

There was a meeting here recently to look at putting wind turbines off the coast in the ocean. Apparently Tybee is looking good for something like that.

In Spain, they have built a solar tower, and plan to build a few more, that will power the whole city of Seville, or 600,000 people.

And there is another city, I believe it is Norway, where almost the whole place is powered by alternative energy sources, including solar, and in a place where there isn't all that much sun.

There is a man in Chicago who has devloped wind turbines that can be used in urban areas. They work very well on top of tall buildings, and high winds are not a problem like they would be with regular turbines. They are already working with the cities of Chicago and New York to use these to help power certain buildings, and they have a contract with India as well. Here is the company... http://www.aerotecture.com/ Here is another company supplying small wind turbines... http://www.mariahpower.com/

There is a man who has developed a very thin plastic that works as a solar collector. It might very well one day be used on roof tiles or in window shades to help power your house. (I'll supply the link later. I apparently don't have it saved in my favorites section and I will have to find the page where I wrote it down.)

They talked about a lot more. You really should check out the show when it comes on again.

I also watched an episode of Futurecar, called "the fuels," and apparantly Norway is already building a hydrogen highway. They have figured out how to supply hydrogen at the pump. They have designed cars that might one day power your house. It really is amazing.

All these other countries are so far ahead of us it really is very sad. We think we are the best. We think we are so damn smart. We aren't. We are actually very, very foolish, because we just allow corporations to mandate how we live.

Alluvial 06-28-2009 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarpop (Post 578380)
All these other countries are so far ahead of us it really is very sad.
To be fair, there are many technological advances being developed in the U.S. that everyday people aren't aware of, such as the water turbine you mention.

sugarpop 06-28-2009 08:19 PM
And the wind turbines I mentioned, I agree. But that isn't even being debating in the energy plan. It is all about big energy corporations. They need to think in a different way about it, and not worry if big energy gets upset.

And the reason I said that is because even the people of this country seem bent on discrediting anything different or new, and keeping those jerks in power and in control over the rest of us, in addition to those assholes in Washington. Other countries are really doing something about moving in that direction. We aren't.

Alluvial 06-28-2009 08:35 PM
I think part of that is the many factions we have here - all pulling in different directions. It's difficult to arrive at agreement. Americans have a difficult time seeing the 'big picture' as it were.

classicman 06-30-2009 09:41 AM
Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Global Warming Bill (HR 2454)
Quote:
The bill is being criticized as the largest tax increase in United States History, so needless to say it has the full backing of the White House.

The legislation, which no member of Congress even claims to have read, imposes limits on carbon dioxide and other green house gas emissions from power plants, factories and refineries. The original legislation also included a tax on bovine flatulence (cow farts) which was removed to gain the apparently necessary support of Democrats from agricultural districts.

This legislation marks the culmination and hopefully the beginning of the end of Global warming hysteria in Washington. While the hysterics over global warming/climate change appeared at first to be undisputed and undisputable over time scientists all over the world have emerged to challenge the validity of the claims made by people like Al Gore. However the fanatics still attempt to stifle any and all dissent, such as the suppressed report by Alan Carlin, a senior researcher at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Proponents of climate change legislation claim as President Obama did in his campaign that they wish to lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. Meanwhile they oppose drilling in the United States to tap the resources we have in this country. Today’s legislation however takes the next step. It enshrines in it a measure that will effectively make drilling for domestic energy more expensive so that conservatives cannot push for domestic drilling as a viable alternative to solving the “energy crisis.” The legislation places a larger tax on domestic gasoline than it does on foreign gasoline. According to a story at Bloomberg News the same amount of gas produced domestically will have $1.00 in carbon costs imposed on it, and meanwhile foreign gas will have ten cents less in carbon costs in it.

Today’s environmental movement behind global warming hysteria is a direct descendant of the movement that defeated the possibility of nuclear power in the United States 30 years ago. In a typical fashion these environmental activists have declared the debate closed and will accept no further questions on the subject. They prattle on about sustainable living with ingenious ideas like the no flush toilet. They brag about living “off the grid” in houses with solar panels without giving a second thought to how the glass, steel and tiles of those solar panels require the very factories and refineries that they wish to see shut down. These people have no idea how the industrial world works. Our lives depend on what fossil fuels can do for us. Our lives depend on the manufacturing of plastic, steel glass, paper plants and pharmaceutical plants. The environmentalists want our lives to depend on what windmills can do for us. That’s right windmills which can’t even produce enough energy to manufacture more windmills are supposed to give us everything else we depend on to live our lives.

This legislation is not about the what is best for the Earth it is about raising taxes and imposing the agenda of the far left environmental movement, and that agenda is no about waht is best for humanity, it is about defeating humanity as we know it.

classicman 06-30-2009 10:19 AM
Quote:
The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."
(Apparently he is also a physicist)

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.

Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.

"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure."

Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.

Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished."

Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.

McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments.

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the request.

Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA was exhibiting an "agency culture set in a predetermined course."

"It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed," they wrote.

In a written statement, Issa said the administration is "actively seeking to withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion."

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Sensenbrenner said in a statement, adding that the "repression" of Carlin's report casts doubt on the entire finding.

Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the presidential level."
I remember a thread about science being perverted for politics. I do not know if this is the R's complaining about everything or if this is a valid issue. To me though, it does seem as if there is a lot more dissent among scientists about exactly what causes what and even more importantly, how to rectify or lessen whatever effect we as the supposed caretakers of this planet can do.

Politically, I hate the way this bill was slammed through the process without one congressman having read it. Commonplace? perhaps, but isn't that what was wrong in the past? Wasn't this time supposed to be different? It may be the same book with a shiny new cover and a much higher price tag.

Happy Monkey 06-30-2009 10:31 AM
I'm not sure why anyone thinks that an unsolicited report from an unrelated office would be included in any official document, regardless of the subject.

classicman 06-30-2009 10:34 AM
Quote:
Home > News Release > CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA
CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA
The Public Shouldn’t Be Kept in the Dark by an Agency Supposedly Committed to Transparency
AddThis Social Bookmark Button Email This Print This

by Richard Morrisontwitter
June 25, 2009
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

TheMercenary 06-30-2009 11:09 AM
Heh. See the stuff I posted in the Global Warming thread. Same thing. Pretty disgusting what Congress has done to this country through this bill....

sugarpop 06-30-2009 04:07 PM
I'm not sure I trust anything coming from a think tank that is all about free enterprise and limited government, because those people will always side with industry. I am more interested in what actual scientists have to say, and the expedition that went to the North Pole for a couple of years says different...
"Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29840099...v-future_earth

Maybe that's why that report from CEI was left out.

classicman 06-30-2009 06:09 PM
Yeh the guy with a wet finger in the air knows so much more. I mean they are selling those DVD's are they? Not a very objective source based upon the headline.

classicman 06-30-2009 11:17 PM
Today’s environmental movement behind global warming hysteria is a direct descendant of the movement that defeated the possibility of nuclear power in the United States 30 years ago. In a typical fashion these environmental activists have declared the debate closed and will accept no further questions on the subject. They prattle on about sustainable living with ingenious ideas like the no flush toilet. They brag about living “off the grid” in houses with solar panels without giving a second thought to how the glass, steel and tiles of those solar panels require the very factories and refineries that they wish to see shut down. These people have no idea how the industrial world works. Our lives depend on what fossil fuels can do for us. Our lives depend on the manufacturing of plastic, steel glass, paper plants and pharmaceutical plants. The environmentalists want our lives to depend on what windmills can do for us. That’s right windmills which can’t even produce enough energy to manufacture more windmills are supposed to give us everything else we depend on to live our lives.

Undertoad 07-03-2009 11:02 AM
National Review finds 50 things to object to with Waxman-Markey

Good work by them. This one, for example, blew me away:

Quote:
14. Naturally, Big Labor gets its piece of the pie, too. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these "investments" pay out inflated union wages. And it’s not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.
Why are union rules forced in a bill about cleaner energy?

From the looks of the 50, everyone who had lobbyists in Washington got a finger in the pie. The big energy companies all now support it because they get, basically, free money. Labor supports it because of the above.

Monsanto supports it because there are farming regulations that will promote weed growth, thus more need for Roundup herbicides in farming. I shit you not.

There are rules about televisions. Faucets. Candelabras. Nuclear energy is not counted as renewable. It continues the ethanol madness. It's full of corporate welfare.

This bill is a major fuck. If it passes, it will be the first thing to really anger me about Obama, because I did think he would make more of an effort to remove lobbying from the Washington culture. As of now, the lobbyists have won... they are more powerful than ever.

xoxoxoBruce 07-03-2009 01:45 PM
Quote:
Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these "investments" pay out inflated union wages.
Makes it harder for non-union firms to compete, by forcing them to pay a decent wage and cuts out under the table illegals. Boo Hoo.

There's a lot of things I don't like about this bill, but that's not one of them.

sugarpop 07-04-2009 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 578863)
Today’s environmental movement behind global warming hysteria is a direct descendant of the movement that defeated the possibility of nuclear power in the United States 30 years ago. In a typical fashion these environmental activists have declared the debate closed and will accept no further questions on the subject. They prattle on about sustainable living with ingenious ideas like the no flush toilet. They brag about living “off the grid” in houses with solar panels without giving a second thought to how the glass, steel and tiles of those solar panels require the very factories and refineries that they wish to see shut down. These people have no idea how the industrial world works. Our lives depend on what fossil fuels can do for us. Our lives depend on the manufacturing of plastic, steel glass, paper plants and pharmaceutical plants. The environmentalists want our lives to depend on what windmills can do for us. That’s right windmills which can’t even produce enough energy to manufacture more windmills are supposed to give us everything else we depend on to live our lives.
:rolleyes:

sugarpop 07-04-2009 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 579379)
National Review finds 50 things to object to with Waxman-Markey

Good work by them. This one, for example, blew me away:

Quote:
14. Naturally, Big Labor gets its piece of the pie, too. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these "investments" pay out inflated union wages. And it’s not just the big research-and-development contracts, since Waxman-Markey forces union-wage rules all the way down to the plumbing-repair and light-bulb-changing level.

Why are union rules forced in a bill about cleaner energy?...
Why is it some people get pissed off about workers getting paid fairly, but they never say ANYTHING about inflated executive wages... You do see the hypocrisy, do you not?

Happy Monkey 07-05-2009 11:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 579379)
Nuclear energy is not counted as renewable.
Well, it's not renewable. It just uses a nonrenewable resource that isn't a fossil fuel.

That being said, I do support it and think it ought to be a big part of our energy plan. As long as we follow something like the French model.

Undertoad 07-06-2009 05:59 AM
Let's compromise and say partly renewable, because the fuel can be reprocessed and part of it used again to generate electricity.

TheMercenary 07-06-2009 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 579379)
National Review finds 50 things to object to with Waxman-Markey

Good work by them. This one, for example, blew me away:



Why are union rules forced in a bill about cleaner energy?

From the looks of the 50, everyone who had lobbyists in Washington got a finger in the pie. The big energy companies all now support it because they get, basically, free money. Labor supports it because of the above.

Monsanto supports it because there are farming regulations that will promote weed growth, thus more need for Roundup herbicides in farming. I shit you not.

There are rules about televisions. Faucets. Candelabras. Nuclear energy is not counted as renewable. It continues the ethanol madness. It's full of corporate welfare.

This bill is a major fuck. If it passes, it will be the first thing to really anger me about Obama, because I did think he would make more of an effort to remove lobbying from the Washington culture. As of now, the lobbyists have won... they are more powerful than ever.
Absolutely. Obama's little Halo is going to be progressively tarnished if this one goes into law. If nothing else is exposes the Demoncrats in Congress as nothing worse than the Republickins they displaced.

Urbane Guerrilla 07-07-2009 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 579379)
This bill is a major fuck. If it passes, it will be the first thing to really anger me about Obama, because I did think he would make more of an effort to remove lobbying from the Washington culture.
You thought what? Keerist, Undertoad. I never thought that. 'S why I didn't vote for the guy -- why I'm standing in TEA parties these days.

You were expecting such a thing from a machine-politician Democrat? Oh please.

The Dems are sowing the seeds of their destruction.

Undertoad 07-07-2009 09:57 AM
Yes, but the difference is, as a strictly partisan if you're "right" about this, it's in a stopped clock sort of way. Here's wagering you never thought Obama would conduct Iraq and Afghanistan by listening to the Generals, as opposed to by his campaign rhetoric on the topic. I did, capice?

And furthermore the problem in this bill so far is the D House, not the D Senate or D President, so at the moment you are complaining about nothing. How stupid is that?

TheMercenary 07-07-2009 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 580037)
And furthermore the problem in this bill so far is the D House, not the D Senate or D President, so at the moment you are complaining about nothing. How stupid is that?
True statement. But is there any doubt about what will happen in the Senate or whether or not the president will sign it? No.

Urbane Guerrilla 07-14-2009 03:45 AM
Your first sentence is difficult to understand clearly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 580037)
Yes, but the difference is, as a strictly partisan if you're "right" about this, it's in a stopped clock sort of way. Here's wagering you never thought Obama would conduct Iraq and Afghanistan by listening to the Generals, as opposed to by his campaign rhetoric on the topic. I did, capice?
I am pleased he is listening to generals, particularly as it gives me hope the Dems will increasingly turn back towards sense, instead of away from contending for democracy and the beneficent effects of globalization. I also recall no indication during his candidacy he actually would behave as cagily as he has, and his party still can't bring itself to behave like it might be quite all right to win a war with anti-democrats even today, when they own the War-that-they're-not-calling-On Terror. With the usual conspicuous exception of Senator Joe Lieberman. The Republicans had and I think still have vision, while the Democrat myopia is still much in evidence.

They've been this feckless for a whole generation, UT, and unsuccessful at breaking totalitarianism for two. Winning this war with a Democratic President would constitute the first time that's happened since Truman. Truman left office three years and four months before I was born, and I'm going gray.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 580037)
And furthermore the problem in this bill so far is the D House, not the D Senate or D President, so at the moment you are complaining about nothing. How stupid is that?
When's the best time to stop a bad law? Back when it's still a Bill. Now how stupid is that?

classicman 11-25-2009 01:37 PM
Quote:
President Obama will vow to cut US carbon emissions by 17% by 2020, when he attends the climate summit in Copenhagen.
Link
Just a thought here.... He won't be president in 2020. I know its just poorly written, but still.

Quote:
President Barack Obama is to pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the US in several stages, beginning with a 17% cut by 2020, the White House has said.

The offer will be made at December's UN climate talks in Copenhagen, which Mr Obama will attend.

But he does not plan to be there for the crucial last days, when delegates including other world leaders are hoping to pull together a deal.
OK so the scenario goes like this. We cut our emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Heck lets say at some point, hopefully, we aren't at the mercy of these countries that hate the US. What then? What happens to the price of oil when we aren't buying it anymore?
If they cannot command the rates they currently are getting how will they support their "friends"? Are they going to simply go away? Will they be less powerful or more determined than ever and take even more drastic measures?

Redux 11-26-2009 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman (Post 611953)
Link
Just a thought here.... He won't be president in 2020. I know its just poorly written, but still.
Many bills are enacted that impose standards and goals well beyond the Congress or the president who enacted those bills. That is how policies that require long-term action work. The environmental laws of the early 70s set emission (water and air borne) goals and standards for the 80s..then further refined and, in some cases, extended the standards when the bills came up for reauthorization.

Most affected businesses would tel you that they prefer long-term government policies that they can plan for (even if they oppose) rather than year-to-year government policy-making, in which business decisions are much difficult to make.


Quote:
OK so the scenario goes like this. We cut our emissions and lessen our dependence on foreign oil. Heck lets say at some point, hopefully, we aren't at the mercy of these countries that hate the US. What then? What happens to the price of oil when we aren't buying it anymore?
If they cannot command the rates they currently are getting how will they support their "friends"? Are they going to simply go away? Will they be less powerful or more determined than ever and take even more drastic measures?
Any loss of the US market for Mideast oil will be easily replaced by the growing market in China and India..even if both impose the same emission standards as the US.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:34 AM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.