Cap and Trade

[Tamrahan]

From what I can tell, the most onerous part on the average American household is an average $1600 per year tax:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

Read further though and it says: "Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2."

"Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States."

"Some electricity consumers would benefit, but the cost to all other American families would be higher."

"In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system."

*all quotes from
Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984.


So far from (what little) I've read I'm not liking. This is scarey stuff. It seems like a lot of hocus pocus to me.
But I'm not done reading yet!

 

[baylian]

I consider my DH one of the smartest guys I know. I truly value his opinion and his one main comment on this bill is "totally un-American - just pulling this out of the air".

The EU does not impress me at all (much like the U.N.) and where is most of the manufacturing at these days? China (Asia) and India. And they have NO inclination to do anything like this.

I personally am not willing to let go of more money out of the DH's paycheck to fund something that has very little impact. The jobs it that it will create will be a wash as manufacturing - what little is left in this country - will all but disappear to other countries with less stringent rules in place.

 

[Tamrahan]

The thing is that $1600.00 or more has got to come from somewhere. It will seriously cut into my fitness budget, like Cathe's DVD's and whatnot, or cable tv/internet will go for example. Therefore if enough people are like me then Cathe's business would be impacted or cable TV company will have to lay off people as the demand for thier business shrinks. Everything could come down like a house of cards or dominoes.

And Baylian is right I think in that China/Asia is not on board.

 

[syzygy314]

I don't usually even read any of the political threads but as this one seemed so low in replies I thought I'd risk it! First off, I'm very impressed by the cordial information sharing, but my main reason for responding is to publicly shame myself and share my woeful degree of ignorance. I am so horrified to realize I was completely unaware this bill was even being discussed let alone passed. It scares me to realize how there are so many issues which will directly affect myself, my children and the rest of the country and I am uninformed. I can not reply with any ounce of an opinion but I thank you for sharing this. It was a good wake up call for me and the importance of becoming a more involved citizen.
Becky

Don't be ashamed - your not ignorant. MJ's passing, the Governor of SC's scandal, and other inane items are clogging the media waves, so the important stuff like this gets shut out unless you hunt for it on the internet! I hadn't heard of this either, but I'll bet my DH knows all the ins and outs. I'll have to check with him tonight.

Tricia

 

[horseshowmom]

Thanks for not thinking I'm an idiot! You are correct about the other news...I live in SC and THAT is ALL the news is reporting! I hadn't looked at it from that angle!

 

[Tamrahan]

Thanks for not thinking I'm an idiot! You are correct about the other news...I live in SC and THAT is ALL the news is reporting! I hadn't looked at it from that angle!

I don't think you're an idiot either! Gosh whenever I try to 'broaden my horizens' and read something political or scientific I come away more confused. I need it in english please. Not the legal mumbo jumbo.

 

[baylian]

Absolutely you are not an idiot!! This thing moved so fast and with everything else happening (MJ, Farrah, SC Governor etc) it was kept on the low.

Please ask, read and inform yourselves.

 

[sparrow13]

I am cynical enough to believe that the gov *hopes* we're not paying attention. So I learn what I can out of sheer cussedness.

 

[sparrow13]

Here's some commentary from Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty website. Just as a point of interest:

The "American Clean Energy and Security" Rip-Off
By Peter Orvetti
Published 06/29/09



On Friday evening, the House of Representatives passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), a well-intentioned but misbegotten Frankenstein monster of a bill intended to combat climate change. Republicans Mary Bono Mack, Mike Castle, Mark Kirk, Frank LoBiondo, John McHugh, Dave Reichert, and Chris Smith joined 211 Democrats to put the bill over the top 219-212. Showing the profiles in courage typical to elected politicians, about three dozen Democrats hung back during the roll call until passage was certain, waiting until they could safely vote no without riling their party's leaders.

As its sponsors struggled to make it palatable to representatives from energy-producing states, the bill swelled from 942 pages to just over 1,200, leaving undecided members little time to digest the new material. This brings to mind Rep. John Conyers's admission to Michael Moore that members of Congress "don't really read most of the bills" they vote for, because it would "slow down the legislative process."

Two weeks after his election as president, Barack Obama said, "Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear." Shortly thereafter, more than 100 scientists signed a newspaper advertisement responding, "With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true." The scientists, from places as varied and esteemed as Los Alamos National Laboratory, the American Physical Society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Princeton University, and the University of Pennsylvania, said the "case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."

But even many who are not skeptical about global warming found things to dislike in ACES. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who voted against it, said, "It won't address the problem. In fact, it might make the problem worse." Kucinich faulted the bill's "Enron-style accounting methods" and allocation of $60 billion for Carbon Capture and Sequestration, "a single technology which may or may not work." Kucinich faulted the corporate welfare embedded in the bill, saying that the "trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors," with any benefits "passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings."

"I take climate change seriously," libertarian economist Megan McArdle wrote last week. But she said the projections for ACES's "effect on global warming are entirely negligible," and any hope that U.S. passage of the bill will "persuade China and India to get on board" is "entirely wishful thinking on the part of American environmentalists. China is not going to let its citizens languish in subsistence farming because 30 years from now, some computer models say there will be some not-well-specified bad effects from high temperatures. Nor is India."

Indeed, United Nations data suggest that ACES will reduce global warming by 0.07 of a degree Fahrenheit by 2050. In exchange, the U.S. risks sparking a trade war with those two massive economic powers when their own near-certain failure to act results in U.S. sanctions. While the Congressional Budget Office says ACES will drive up the average family's energy bill by about $175 per year by 2020, that does not take into account the larger economic cost.

A Center for Data Analysis study concludes ACES will hurt the gross domestic product by $9.4 trillion by 2035 and cost the average family $1,241 per year. That's because, as the Wall Street Journal put it last week, "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." A British analysis finds the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year for carbon-cutting programs that were introduced just a few years ago.

As Obama himself said during his run for the Democratic presidential nomination, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers." Meanwhile, reductions in consumer spending will necessarily mean a decline in production which could eliminate more than 1.1 million jobs.

This is an awful lot to pay for legislation that will not reduce global warming and will not encourage other major economic powers to become more environmentally conscious. Maybe next time, Congress should read the bill before voting on it.

 

[pink_fortitude]

Sparrow, I think I love you.

Melissa

 

[baylian]

Thank You Sparrow . .

This reads like another control issue for the Feds.

I urge all who do not want this to pass to call their Senators today.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

 

[dorothyrd]

Reducing emissions is not a bad goal. Visiting the Smokey's last week showed that acid rain has in part killed all the Frasier Firs in the upper elevations....a sad sight.

However, if you are set on alternate energy, it has to be affordably available.

Nuclear energy is, as sited in one of the articles Laura put up, one of these. But our big stone with that is the waste. Right now there are 200 sites around the country storing it, some not very safe, and Obama put the cabosh on Yucca Mountain, which in my research and personal knowledge from former workers(yes former, this administration caused their job loss), was actually the best plan that we have the technology for. Actually the best plan on the planet is France's who is able to recycle and reuse their's so the waste is nominal. Why we cannot do that???

Solar energy is a fantastic idea. We have places in this nation that get tons of sun, let's harness it. Around here, we have wind, so there is a push for windmills. Well guess what, lots of people are fighting them. Too noisy, affect birds, ugly, whatever, the complaints go on and on. However, there are communities in Illinois that are successfully powering their towns with windmills.

My father in 1982 built a passive solar house. He did not use solar power, but used passive methods in the design of the house to use the earth, the sunlight and by the design of the house, allowed air circulation. He heated his house with a wood burning stove for 15 years, and then broke down and bought a furnace. His power bill after that was still minimal, turning it on only on the coldest of the cold days. In Illinois, not having a furnace for 15 years and being comfortable is something. More builders should be encouraged to use these methods.

I also thought cars were one of the main sources of emissions. This bill does nothing for this.

The problem as far as I can see it is this. This bill ramrods into place a force of reducing emissions, without affordable alternatives. Only the strong will survive, and at a much higher cost to them. The not so strong will close, and jobs will be lost. The higher costs of the strong does get passed to everyone in everything we buy. Higher fuel affects everything. This is not something that we can afford at this time of crazy deficits and bailing this company or that company out on the backs of the American people.

Our company in the last year or so has a 40% reduction in staff and many of those people who are white collar, high payed people are jobless. They are not paying taxes, I don't seeing the economy getting better for them, and dislike the media that keeps telling us it is. This type of thing on top of everything else is going to be bad and should not pass.

1200 pages of unread bill that has passed is ridiculous. For the emissions issue, for the alternative energy issue, it should be thoughtfully worked out, and given the time for people to read and understand it. Look how many folks here are clueless about it, yet it could pass and affect us all greatly.

I try to stay quiet about an administration whose policy I struggle with, but big government in everything just cannot be the answer.

 

[Vee]

The EU does not impress me at all (much like the U.N.) and where is most of the manufacturing at these days? China (Asia) and India.

China is indeed a manufacturing base (but it still emits less CO2 than USA). Manufacturing in India is still emerging. Manufacturing represents only 17% of India's GDP. India is a significant services exporter. Domestic demand consumes 85% of the manufacturing output of India.

And they have NO inclination to do anything like this.

And Baylian is right I think in that China/Asia is not on board.

Not true for India. India has long been concerned about global warming and the need for global cooperation to address this. The world's biggest contributors to global warming are the developed countries and the countries that will suffer the most consequences are developing countries. Here is a WHO link on which countries emit most, vs impact to the health of populations in various parts of the world. This book discusses the skewing between contribution to global warming and impact to agriculture and economy to various countries. You will find a lot more if you google or research for this.

This is a link to an article on global warming Here is an extract:

India is not an industrial nation, it is out of the Kyoto Protocol until 2012. But the importance of India and China as CO2 emitters is rising with economic growth. India will eventually have to address this problem. India’s stance is that the world should agree on per capita emission rights. This is a fair approach because every citizen of the planet will be given an identical ‘‘right’’ to pollute. .....

Public opinion outside the US favours India’s stance. ....... In one year, the average American produces as much GHG emissions as eighteen Indians. If both the US and India were to reduce emissions proportionately, then the American would continue indefinitely producing GHGs eighteen times that of the Indian. ‘‘But,’’ as Elizabeth Kolbert asks in the New Yorker, ‘‘why should anyone have the right to emit more than anyone else?’

 

[MAYNARDSMOM]

I don't usually even read any of the political threads but as this one seemed so low in replies I thought I'd risk it! First off, I'm very impressed by the cordial information sharing, but my main reason for responding is to publicly shame myself and share my woeful degree of ignorance. I am so horrified to realize I was completely unaware this bill was even being discussed let alone passed. It scares me to realize how there are so many issues which will directly affect myself, my children and the rest of the country and I am uninformed. I can not reply with any ounce of an opinion but I thank you for sharing this. It was a good wake up call for me and the importance of becoming a more involved citizen.
Becky

I'm the same as my pal Becky, no clue!!! The television isn ot my friend, well excpect to watch Cathe of course!
Thanks for the info, if it wasn't for you guys I would know nothing!! How do you think I found out about Farha & Michael!?!? Who needs CNN when you the forum!

 

[sparrow13]

Interesting. Greenpeace is against the bill. They feel it is just a special interest giveaway essentially.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-mark

 

[dorothyrd]

Interesting. Greenpeace is against the bill. They feel it is just a special interest giveaway essentially.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-mark

HMMMMMMMMMMM!

 

[Tamrahan]

Reducing emissions is not a bad goal. Visiting the Smokey's last week showed that acid rain has in part killed all the Frasier Firs in the upper elevations....a sad sight.

However, if you are set on alternate energy, it has to be affordably available.

Nuclear energy is, as sited in one of the articles Laura put up, one of these. But our big stone with that is the waste. Right now there are 200 sites around the country storing it, some not very safe, and Obama put the cabosh on Yucca Mountain, which in my research and personal knowledge from former workers(yes former, this administration caused their job loss), was actually the best plan that we have the technology for. Actually the best plan on the planet is France's who is able to recycle and reuse their's so the waste is nominal. Why we cannot do that???

Solar energy is a fantastic idea. We have places in this nation that get tons of sun, let's harness it. Around here, we have wind, so there is a push for windmills. Well guess what, lots of people are fighting them. Too noisy, affect birds, ugly, whatever, the complaints go on and on. However, there are communities in Illinois that are successfully powering their towns with windmills.

My father in 1982 built a passive solar house. He did not use solar power, but used passive methods in the design of the house to use the earth, the sunlight and by the design of the house, allowed air circulation. He heated his house with a wood burning stove for 15 years, and then broke down and bought a furnace. His power bill after that was still minimal, turning it on only on the coldest of the cold days. In Illinois, not having a furnace for 15 years and being comfortable is something. More builders should be encouraged to use these methods.

I also thought cars were one of the main sources of emissions. This bill does nothing for this.

The problem as far as I can see it is this. This bill ramrods into place a force of reducing emissions, without affordable alternatives. Only the strong will survive, and at a much higher cost to them. The not so strong will close, and jobs will be lost. The higher costs of the strong does get passed to everyone in everything we buy. Higher fuel affects everything. This is not something that we can afford at this time of crazy deficits and bailing this company or that company out on the backs of the American people.

Our company in the last year or so has a 40% reduction in staff and many of those people who are white collar, high payed people are jobless. They are not paying taxes, I don't seeing the economy getting better for them, and dislike the media that keeps telling us it is. This type of thing on top of everything else is going to be bad and should not pass.

1200 pages of unread bill that has passed is ridiculous. For the emissions issue, for the alternative energy issue, it should be thoughtfully worked out, and given the time for people to read and understand it. Look how many folks here are clueless about it, yet it could pass and affect us all greatly.

I try to stay quiet about an administration whose policy I struggle with, but big government in everything just cannot be the answer.

I appreciate all your thoughts on this Dorothy. A lot of good points were brought up.

 

[kerribilliot1]

It is just another way for the government to control us. Exactly what this new nationalized health care will do. If I wanted to live in a socialist country I would move. We better open our eyes and stop this. Our great country will never be the same. God is in control of this country, not the government.

 

[Tamrahan]

Thank You Sparrow . .

This reads like another control issue for the Feds.

I urge all who do not want this to pass to call their Senators today.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

It is just another way for the government to control us. Exactly what this new nationalized health care will do. If I wanted to live in a socialist country I would move. We better open our eyes and stop this. Our great country will never be the same. God is in control of this country, not the government.

How can we stop it? Many of us have never even heard of it? I did write my Senators with the above link that Baylian supplied-not sure what that will do. I agree with Dorothy-we need to do something but I think this will further deteriorate our country.

 

[fitlulu]

Thank You Sparrow . .

This reads like another control issue for the Feds.

I urge all who do not want this to pass to call their Senators today.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Baylian--

I had contacted my Representative before their vote, and had every intention of contacting Senators, as I have also been following this issue. I don't post very often, but wanted to say THANKS for posting the link. It saved time for me, and I hope others use it as well!