PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Roy Blunt's Cap and Trade Limit Rejected...Obo needs that Tax money


HonestChieffan
05-22-2009, 06:55 AM
Looks like Blunt did a pretty nice job...and the dems showed the true color on cap and trade. Whats a 40% increase in electric bills? I guess its not a tax if its not called a tax.

http://www.redstate.com/congressman_roy_blunt/2009/05/21/actions-speak-louder-than-words-on-energy-tax-debate/

Actions Speak Louder Than Words on Energy Tax Debate

Posted by Congressman Roy Blunt (Profile)

Thursday, May 21st at 3:50PM EDT

During the campaign, President Obama said plans similar to the Waxman-Markey energy tax bill would cause electricity rates to “necessarily skyrocket” and costs will be “passed on to consumers.” Creating new taxes that kill jobs is never a good idea and it’s even worse during a recession. Moreover, a dramatic increase in utility bills would disproportionately hurt the poor, disadvantaged and those who have lost their job.

Throughout this debate, some Democrats have asserted that the cap and trade energy tax scheme will not make much of a difference on the average family’s utility bills. However, a study conducted for the Missouri Joint Municipal Electric Utility Commission estimates Missouri rates could increase as much as 40 percent by 2015 due to these policies.

That’s why I offered an amendment to reverse this bill once your electricity rates go up 10 percent. Democrats who support the energy tax balked. “That won’t happen,” they claimed. My amendment wasn’t needed, they argued. It seemed logical if they really believed that the costs of this tax will not be passed on to consumers then why not support my amendment as an emergency exit for American families.

I believe actions speak louder than words. It speaks volumes that the same officials who claim energy costs will not increase by more than 10 percent due to this tax refused to support my emergency exit amendment.

Again to protect consumers, I offered the same amendment today and increased the number to 20 percent, believing surely this was a reasonable figure. Every Democrat opposed this bill.

Some have argued falsely that Republicans are simply saying “no” to Democrat ideas without offering any solutions of their own. This is not the case. I for one have offered many ideas and possible solutions to help improve America’s energy security. I support an “all of the above” approach including more production, more alternatives and more conservation. What I do not support is a backdoor energy tax on American families.

After defeating the two amendments I offered, supporters of the energy tax went on to vote en bloc to defending the energy tax even after your electricity rates double. It is clear the national Democrats’ big government tax and spend era has reached a new level – and, unfortunately, if we cannot stop them, every American is going to pay.

patteeu
05-22-2009, 10:37 AM
Tax mongers exposed again.

Garcia Bronco
05-22-2009, 10:43 AM
Tax'em Democrats.

mlyonsd
05-22-2009, 11:10 AM
Let's Have Cap and No Trade

By David Sokol
Tuesday, May 19, 2009



The adage that everyone wants to go to heaven but no one wants to die is on display again as the House considers a massive 932-page climate-change bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/15/AR2009051503367.html), introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), that would establish a "cap and trade" system for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. Its sponsors say it will keep low- and middle-income consumers whole while the United States cuts emissions 83 percent (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-sandler/waxman-markey-vs-van-holl_b_183847.html) below 2005 levels by 2050 and transitions to a clean-energy economy.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

On paper, the Waxman-Markey bill puts a cost on carbon dioxide by imposing a ceiling, or cap, on greenhouse gas emissions and then setting up a market for regulated industries -- such as the electric power sector -- to buy and sell allowances to pollute under that cap. As the cap is reduced each year, market participants will exchange allowances in a complex auction market.

If you liked what credit default swaps did to our economy, you're going to love cap-and-trade. Just read Title VIII of the bill, which lets investment banks, hedge funds and other speculators participate in the cap-and-trade market. They don't have emissions to cut; they have commissions to make.

The real hidden catch of the cap-and-trade system, though, is that it will require consumers to pay twice: first for emission allowances and then for the construction of new low- and zero-carbon power plants.

Congressional estimates of government revenue from the sale of cap-and-trade allowances range from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars.

Contrary to assurances from the bill's sponsors that utility customers wouldn't have to pay these costs for the first decade, some coal-dependent utilities would be forced to purchase more than half of their allowances when the program is scheduled to begin in 2012. Would these allowances reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? No; that would come when consumers footed a second bill -- for the cost of their utilities either to retrofit coal and gas plants to capture carbon -- something that cannot be done today on a commercial scale -- or to shut them down and build non-carbon-producing nuclear plants and wind farms instead.

In fact, to the extent that cap-and-trade auctions increase ratepayers' bills, they will impede utilities' ability to develop a less carbon-intensive infrastructure.

Markets thrive on volatility. Electricity utilities, on the other hand, are highly regulated to ensure price stability -- not volatility -- for their customers. The Waxman-Markey bill imposes a market-based (read: unregulated) trading program on a highly regulated industry that must make enormous long-term and least-cost capital decisions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. In an unprecedented and unwise fashion, it turns American industry over to the federal Environmental Protection Agency by giving the agency the authority to change the rules on allowances every five years. Is this sound public and economic policy? I think not.

If Congress wants to achieve 83 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, the electricity sector can get there, but there is no need for that first cost. Get rid of auctions, speculation, trading, new Wall Street "products" (yes, the bill allows for credit default swaps and carbon derivatives) and the trillions of dollars in government revenue that may end up being spent on other programs. Get rid of the 12 new advisory boards, committees and other institutions established under the Waxman-Markey bill. Focus instead on the most efficient and inexpensive way to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

The solution? Keep the cap and remove trading from the equation: Mandate that the industry, over the same 40-year period, simply limit its emissions to the same levels proposed in the Waxman-Markey bill. This can be accomplished with a clear plan that gives states an option: Either they participate in a cap-and-trade program or they elect an alternative compliance mechanism to reach the same greenhouse gas emission goals by working with their utilities to develop a 40-year program of shutting down aging coal plants, retrofitting plants to capture carbon dioxide if the technology becomes available, and/or building zero-carbon energy plants. More important, the carbon dioxide reductions in this proposal can be achieved while providing adequate time to plan to minimize price shock and economic dislocation. It is the states, through their public utilities commissions -- not the federal government -- that have both the interest and obligation to manage citizens' costs while transitioning to a carbon-free future.

This transformation of our entire electricity sector won't be cheap, but it would be less expensive than the double cost of a complex cap-and-trade program followed by that same transformation.

The writer is chairman of the board of Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co., a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, which also owns an 18 percent stake in The Washington Post Co.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/18/AR2009051802647_pf.html

RINGLEADER
05-23-2009, 11:39 PM
http://www.microfueler.com/t-carboncredit.aspx

alanm
05-24-2009, 12:06 AM
2010 can't get here soon enough. Hopefully the American public will throw these bums out and neuter Obama.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2009, 12:26 AM
2010 can't get here soon enough. Hopefully the American public will throw these bums out and neuter Obama.

They, as are their supporters, are taking for granted the goodwill that put them in power. One party rule will makes them all the more arrogant and bold with this heavy handed socialism they're doling out. Pride cometh before a fall. They go too far and they'll be out just like the Rs were.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-24-2009, 01:29 AM
They, as are their supporters, are taking for granted the goodwill that put them in power. One party rule will makes them all the more arrogant and bold with this heavy handed socialism they're doling out. Pride cometh before a fall. They go too far and they'll be out just like the Rs were.

This isn't even Socialism, sure they're gonna take all the money but it doesn't look like they are going to give any back.

tiptap
05-24-2009, 12:39 PM
"Christensen Associates Energy Consulting, LLC 1 3/31/09
Cap-and-trade programs are not new. They have been used for SO2 and NOx emissions regulation in the United States, and for GHG regulation in Europe. GHG cap-and-trade systems are also currently operating in the Northeast U.S., are being planned for California, and are currently under consideration in the Midwest in response to an initiative by the Midwest Governors Association. Relative to taxing emissions, cap-and-trade programs have the advantages of “assuring” that emissions targets are met and possibly providing a means of mitigating the substantial wealth transfers than can accompany the introduction of GHG markets.

As demonstrated by the results of this and other studies, the magnitude and timetable for reductions is the biggest issue in terms of overall dollar impact of a cap-and-trade program, but running a close second in importance is whether allowances are auctioned or allocated at no cost, which is the focus of the current study. Auctioning allowances of course would have the same result as allocating allowances at no charge if auction revenues were distributed in the same manner as allowances would have been allocated. But such a result is unlikely. The temptation to use auction revenues for social purposes or for reducing government budget deficits will be strong. And if allowances are allocated at no cost, there are still substantialquestions about who gets them and how they are used."

This is taken from the study used in Blunt's discussion. What is concerned and reinforced in "MYLONSD" is the use of a cap and trade system to provide revenue to operations, governmental or capitalistic, outside of the directly regulated utility industry. But to note, if entities, individual, industrial or governmental, have found that the GHG have to be mitigated, than the management of that should be rewarded in either a revenue going to the private or public institution that is most immediately involved in meeting the "objective" levels.

So Blunt's discussion is misaligned with the objective. We have ample evidence that many times people will pay the penalty, ie direct tax, and continue on with the emissions. It is the capping of emissions that has to be looked to. The rise in payments by the customer is itself part of the shared process to affect the actual amount of GHGs produced and released without mitigation.

I am all for overseeing that any potential bubble in this process is well regulated. And the ultimate check will be the public acceptance of the process and its price.

I have no illusion that this will be simple. Embrace complexity.

I am fully aware that those who deny GHGs can be a problem would see this as a true folly. And it would be so. I, and any GHG supporter, enters this with reservations. Hopefully the sunspots will stay away and we will get a small reprieve in the magnitude and timing of GHG reductions. Don't hold your breath.

HonestChieffan
05-24-2009, 12:44 PM
And the tax gets passed right on......

tiptap
05-24-2009, 01:52 PM
And the tax gets passed right on......

And far too often it relieves the paying party of having to meet the real need of a absolute cap on emissions. It is cheaper artificially because the costs of the GHGs comes later, continuing to release GHGs.

HonestChieffan
05-24-2009, 02:06 PM
If you buy these GHG theories in the first place...most is hokupokus.

blaise
05-24-2009, 03:23 PM
Don't worry, when the energy bills skyrocket they can just point out how the executives of the companies are making too much money and shift the blame to them.

blaise
05-24-2009, 03:24 PM
Future headline: "Utility Bills Skyrocket While Executives Lavish Themselves With Gifts".

SBK
05-24-2009, 05:22 PM
Am I going to have to pay a tax to exhale?

Maybe I could carry a tree around with me to absorb what I exhale. So long as I don't exercise or do anything to make myself breathe too much I should be carbon neutral.
Posted via Mobile Device

tiptap
05-24-2009, 06:36 PM
If you buy these GHG theories in the first place...most is hokupokus.

So how do you explain the rise in temperatures? Ohh it normal it is natural. This is the same as saying it is magical or it is god's will. Without an explanation to account for the rise than you are not in the game. All the details line up with an increase in the lower part of the atmosphere of GHGs. The amount of energy reaching the ground is LESS than 50 years ago. This is evident from the water replacement agricultural studies world wide. And yet the average climate temperatures are rising. The amount of CO 2 by all measurements, is rising. A known GHG. And the CO 2 is not wrung out of the atmosphere like water is over desert regions. So in those kinds of areas the CO 2 is the dominant GHG. That would include the polar regions and such. Yes water dominates in the warmest ocean regions but what is pushing the equilibrium point is the increase in CO 2. And man with both concrete and fossil fuel burning is putting 10 times the amount CO 2 as all the volcanoes in the world do each and every year.

BucEyedPea
05-24-2009, 07:27 PM
So how do you explain the rise in temperatures? It's coming from the hot air coming out of the mouths of the UN and watermelon movement folks. It's getting the argument overheated.That's what's causing the rise if it's really rising as much as claimed.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2009, 12:46 PM
So how do you explain the rise in temperatures? Ohh it normal it is natural. This is the same as saying it is magical or it is god's will. Without an explanation to account for the rise than you are not in the game. All the details line up with an increase in the lower part of the atmosphere of GHGs. The amount of energy reaching the ground is LESS than 50 years ago. This is evident from the water replacement agricultural studies world wide. And yet the average climate temperatures are rising. The amount of CO 2 by all measurements, is rising. A known GHG. And the CO 2 is not wrung out of the atmosphere like water is over desert regions. So in those kinds of areas the CO 2 is the dominant GHG. That would include the polar regions and such. Yes water dominates in the warmest ocean regions but what is pushing the equilibrium point is the increase in CO 2. And man with both concrete and fossil fuel burning is putting 10 times the amount CO 2 as all the volcanoes in the world do each and every year.

The data does not support any conclusion at this point. Thats what the fuss is about...some scientists as well as kooks like Gore and Co. are all aflutter...yet equally important are other scientists that say its all a crock od horsepoop.

For loonies like yourself that have bought into this campaign of smoke and mirrors, Id suggest you consider the hole in the ozone a few yers back. I bet there was space stuff that got in and no one even noticed it.

Is Concrete a bad thing? It makes CO2?

Does water dominate in in cooler ocean regions? I thought water was pretty much in all oceans.

Dear oh dear, its all such a bother.