- ‹ previous
- 829 of 2794
- next ›
Cap and Trade in the Dark?
Here's some disturbing info on the climate change bill moving through Congress. From a press release put out by the Sunlight Foundation:
Washington, DC - This Friday, Congress plans to vote on a bill that could fundamentally alter the American economy, dramatically affect the climate, and have huge implications for our national security. But, right now no one knows what's in the bill or how it came to be.
Last week, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (the "Cap and Trade Energy Bill"), or H.R. 2454, was 946 pages long. Over the weekend, it ballooned to 1,201 pages with no explanation for how or why. It is currently only available online at the House Rules Committee, and is reported as "text of the bill to be introduced." This legislative maneuvering reminds us of the failure of Congress to make bills properly available before consideration.
In a statement today, Sunlight Foundation Engagement Director Jake Brewer said, "The fastest speed-readers and the most intelligent minds can't make informed decisions with that much time. How can Congress?" He continued, "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."
It's very likely that even many of those advocating for or against this legislation won't know what was inserted or what the final bill will be, since changes will be accepted right up until 9:30am on Thursday morning before an intended vote on Friday....
Without proper public and journalistic oversight, it may be too late for the cap and trade energy bill. It will likely become another case study in Sunlight's hall of shamefully rushed bills.
Earlier today, I noted that Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the two lead authors of the bill, are honorable legislators and passionate about redressing the negative consequences of climate change. Still, folks on and off the Hill ought to know--and understand--what's in the bill before it reaches a vote.
Carbon tax is better
That's why a broad-based carbon tax is a better way to go than cap-and-trade. There are too many ways that industry lobbying groups can game cap-and-trade rules to their benefit, and in ways that are difficult for the public to understand.
With a carbon tax, on the other hand, a lobbying group would have to ask for a tax exemption, which anyone can understand.
My bet is that Congress will pass a lousy cap-and-trade bill, and several years from now we'll be discussing how ineffective it turned out.
Energy Bill
Hope this issue be resolved..
Cap and trade would kill the U.S. economy
No patriotic and informed American can support the ACES Act (global warming/cap and trade scam), a huge Ponzy scheme that will kill the U.S. economy.
Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, the United Nations, etc.) -- all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
Please do what you can to defend your family and your country. Write to your Representative -- https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
the same "famed climatologist"
who doesn't believe in antropogenic climate change and works as a consultant to ford, gm, exxon and shell? The one who also postulated that one of Mars' moons was artificial and that ozone depletion was a myth? Yeah, he sounds like a reliable source. I'll be sure to write my representatives and ask for protection from "Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, the United Nations". Thanks for the info crazy conspiracy theorist guy. Keep fighting the new world order, the illuminati and the giant reptiles from another dimension.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant, the Earth is NOT warming
CO2 is NOT a pollutant, the Earth is NOT warming, and increasing taxes on our remaining struggling companies will kill them or force them to move to other countries, which would increase unemployment, poverty and dependence.
Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don't have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can’t protect the environment. Just look at Haiti!
More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/
Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." http://www.petitionproject.org
Please do what you can to defend your family and your country. Write to your Representative -- https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
RED ALERT: Conservative
RED ALERT: Conservative android attack!
Warren Buffet, who has
Warren Buffet, who has forgotten more about economic issues than most of us will ever know, argues that cap-and-trade is nothing but a debacle. When the Oracle of Omaha speaks, you'd better listen.
Cap-and-trade is nothing but a scheme to defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned money in a vain attempt to combat "global warming."
The next generation of robber barrons will enconse themselves in the "green revolution" - promising doe-eyed environmentalists all sorts of great energy that won't harm the environment. Unfortunately, they will do it off the taxpayer's dime.
If you think I jest, look no further than Mother Jones' analysis of what a sham the "organic" food/chemical product industry is. Can't wait until that hits the energy sector.
wrong and wrong
First of all, what Buffet said as far as i can determine is that - “In the utility business, it’s [cap-and-trade] going to be borne by customers. And it’s a tax like anything else,” he said.
Nothing there about Cap-and-trade is nothing but a scheme to defraud taxpayers of their hard-earned money in a vain attempt to combat "global warming." or being a debacle.
So your first point is pretty much not one at all. I think everyone can agree cap-and-trade will have a cost as a consumer level, and whether or not its regressive in nature will depend on implementation. Things we need to do usually cost money. Shocking, I know.
Your second "point" is that this is just like the organic food industry. Considering you offer no evidence or even argument to support this, its not really a point at all.
So, in closing, your post was completely useless and meaningless. Please try to make your next one worthwhile or just keep it to yourself. Thanks.
Because there will no GOP
Because there will no GOP votes for this POS, it will be interesting to see if there a majority of House Democrats who are stupid enough to vote for it. Since a defeat would be a huge embarrassment for Nancy, she's probably telling members that this is a safe vote because there is no way that this thing will ever pass the Senate.
A question for the
A question for the global-warming deniers (and flat-Earthers):
Even if you do not accept global-warming, isn't it in the national interest to become more energy efficient and reduce our dependence on Mideast oil?
Global Warming Denier:
Definitely not a Flat Earther. Since the 70's when I was in Junior High I have realized that the earth is an ever-evolving living thing. It will always be changing. Sometimes for the good some not so good. That is it's evolution! Forever.
However, just because someone doesn't believe in Global warming does Not make one irresponsible. We/I believe in taking care of the earth. We have always done what's proper for this measure.
As for dependency on oil from the Mideast or any other country, we should be looking to ourselves for energy sources, and we have them and we are not using them.
Finally someone who has some
Finally someone who has some sense.
Is the issue believing in global warming or accepting the evidence? After all, it's all about science, belief doesn't enter into it.
As for global warming, I take the John McCain line: I'm not 100% sure that's it's true, but the very possiblilty means we should act about upon it. And even if we're wrong, we progress technologically and ensure national energy independence.
I don't understand how anyone can be against such an obvious stance.
"Even if you do not accept
"Even if you do not accept global-warming, isn't it in the national interest to become more energy efficient and reduce our dependence on Mideast oil?"
First, we don't import most of our oil from the Mideast. Even if that were true, we could wean ourselves off Mideast oil by drilling/exploring here at home. But a certain political group wants to ensure that never happens.
Oil is a fungible commodity,
Oil is a fungible commodity, so even if we don't directly use it, we are indirectly dependent on it. I thought that was obvious. Everyone knows this.
There are not enough oil reserves here to make us energy independent. No one claims otherwise.
You are a child. Go play with your toys and let the grown-ups talk.
"You are a child. Go play
"You are a child. Go play with your toys and let the grown-ups talk."
I'm not a child, I understood "fungible commodity" without googling it. Thanks for the lecture on economics, though if you really understood it, you wouldn't have originally spouted your "reduce our dependence on Mideast oil" populist nonsense.
Oil is cheaper, per gallon, that bottled water. Peak oil ninnies have been crowing for years that the planet's oil is all but depleted. Yet for years, new and new oil supplies have been found, mostly by countries smart enough to look for it. The last escalation of oil prices was nothing more than financial hedging, rather than a supply-based rise in prices.
But if you really want to wean the U.S. off of oil, good luck with that. Most liberals are against nuclear fuel, coal power and drilling at home, meaning you want wind and solar power to sate the nation's energy needs. What a pipe dream. Currently, wind and solar couldn't even provide 5% of the nation's current electrical needs, much less its power from oil.
But go ahead, put up windmills everywhere. Just watch as the Audobon Society fights you tooth and nail. And clean water advocates will fight you as well with your solar power plants, who use large amounts of water.
I've got a better idea: drill for more oil here at home.
Cite, Please
MacGruber, cite where Buffett "argues that cap-and-trade is nothing but a debacle." I see where he argued that it would likely be "regressive", which is an entirely different matter, and if true, problematic. But a far cry from a "debacle".
Furthermore, the CBO report over the past few days show that the Clean Energy and Security Act was actually progressive not regressive in that it was a net benefit for the lowest quartile of families in the US.
So, what was your point again?
"Furthermore, the CBO report
"Furthermore, the CBO report over the past few days show that the Clean Energy and Security Act was actually progressive not regressive in that it was a net benefit for the lowest quartile of families in the US."
Which means it was a net loss for 3/4 of families in the U.S. Since 3/4 > 1/4, it is regressive.
While Buffet may not have used the word "debacle" out of sympathy for his pal Obama, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, Charlie Munger, called cap-and-trade "monstrously stupid."
I like that better than debacle.
Both Munger and Buffet assert that cap-and-trade won't reduce CO2 emmissions. It is a tax hike for most Americans. Who knows where all that money will go...
Cite, please again
Currently, wind and solar couldn't even provide 5% of the nation's current electrical needs,
Where do you get that from?
As of '07, Germany is getting 14% of its energy from renewables.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany
Denmark is doing substantially better, about 24%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
Regressive
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Nice try, though.
The CBO numbers here
Kevin covered it a few days ago. Less than $70/year per person in 2020, or less than 20 cents per day. And that's the worst case. Clearly catastrophic. Or, if you prefer, a debacle.
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/06/chart-day-5
But, yeah, Charlie Munger channels what Warren Buffett would have said had he not been friends with Obama. Which proves what again?
"Where do you get that
"Where do you get that from?"
The U.S. government:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/frame.html
Check out the "total energy" frame. Turns out I was a little generous with my 5%. It's actually less.
"I don't think that word means what you think it means. Nice try, though."
Actually, I do. Since 75% of the American families will see their taxes increase, then it can't be progressive. You see, while the bottom quartile might see a net gain, the 25% - 50% will still see a tax hike. Those poor people, as well as the lower middle class, will pay more. About the same amount as the rich. How's that progressive?
I stand by my, and Warren Buffet's assertion: cap-and-trade is regressive.
So much for Obama promising that no one making under 250K will pay any new taxes.
Back to the topic: did you finish reading the 1000+ page bill? Is it all Obama advertised?
The usual hot air from Ditto-Head liars
MacGruber, Chicounsel and AntonioSosa are deliberate liars. They repeatedly post statements that they know to be false. When this is demonstrated, they respond by repeating the same lies again.
Don't waste your time with them -- that's exactly what they want you to do, is waste time responding to their deliberate lies. That's what dumbass Ditto-Heads do -- waste people's time with deliberate lies.
"iSo much for Obama
"iSo much for Obama promising that no one making under 250K will pay any new taxes."
You disingenuous troll, the cap and trade bill requires polluters to pay for their emissions; it doesn't raise taxes on the public.
Let's Be Real, Here
At this point it's a mostly bogus issue. It's not "Congress" voting, under the Constitution "Congress" doesn't vote. It's the House of Representatives voting. There will be plenty of time to review and analyze the content of the bill before the Senate takes it up (assuming they do). Months, maybe a year will elapse.
This kind of BS pisses me off
I work on the Hill. I cover energy policy. Anyone on the Hill who claims this is all a surprise and they have no idea what the changes are to the bill is either incredibly bad at their job, or lying. The vast bulk of the amendment is the agriculture provisions negotiated with Chairman Peterson, the details of which have been available for days. The rest is amendments submitted through the normal amendment process through the Rules committee that were all rolled into one amendment for procedural reasons. However, the text of each individual amendment is available on the Rules Committee website, and has been within hours of being submitted. Yes, the deadline for amendments was the day before floor action--that's always the deadline, we deal with amendments on this time scale every day. This is nothing new, nothing sneaky.
If any staffer or Member of Congress claimed they didn't know what they were voting on yesterday, it's their own fault--either dumb or lazy. Stop making excuses and do your job.
"Even if you do not
"Even if you do not understand global-warming, isn't it in the general interest to become more power professional and ease our dependence on Mideast oil?"
First, we don't introduce most of our oil from the Mideast. Even if that were true, we could wean ourselves off Mideast oil by drilling/exploring here at home. But a certain political group wants to ensure so as to never happen.