The Sweet Science II: Cap & Trade

President Obama has admitted that under a cap-and-trade bill, “electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”  The Obama

administration’s budget director, Peter Orszag, estimated that a 15 percent decrease in emissions would cause the average American family to pay $1,300 in additional utility costs a year. At the upper end, that amount could reach $1,761 a year.

But it’s better than doing nothing!

Kerry and Boxer deserve credit for their work so far, and encouragement in fending off the inevitable calls for compromises by

industries that fear the cost of change. The cost of inaction – or inadequate action – would be far greater.(boston.com)

Rep. Henry Waxman (D) – The harsh reality is that America’s global warming and energy challenges are just too important for us to keep  mailing it in by not enacting a comprehensive energy and global  warming bill.”

“The bill does not add one penny to the deficit,” Boxer said. “We’re very excited about that.”

The House passed its version of the bill, which is almost 1,500 pages long, at a cost of about $900 billion.  Members had less than 16 hours to read the final bill before it was voted on.  Legislators are seizing power and adding unprecedented tax burdens to Americans

without even reading the legislation. (IBD)

Poor households will receive additional payments to compensate for purchasing power they will lose due to cap-and-trade, another

indication that the administration sees the law’s effects on prices. Oh, like the subsidies to pay for the mandatory health insurance…

President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders, who have suggested that a cap on carbon emissions would help

revive the U.S. economy. (NYT)

But then again, so was the stimulus and health care reform, and the secret talks about another stimulus!!

Heard this one before??

In June, the House of Representatives narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey energy bill, which aims to increase investment in

renewable energy and slash carbon emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.  In early October Senators John Kerry and Barbara Boxer unveiled the Senate’s version of the bill.  It is even more ambitious, with a goal of cutting emissions by 20 percent by 2020.

The sponsors also drop the politically loaded term “cap and trade,”calling it “pollution reduction and investment” instead. Orwellian word games always inspires confidence doesn’t it? But there’s a $3.6 trillion gas tax on the table that already passed the House and is making its way through the Senate, and cap and trade has Americans all over the country concerned. The $3.6 trillion gas tax figure, which includes gasoline and diesel gas, comes from a new report from Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Kit Bond (R-MO) on the effects of climate change legislation. And the energy tax has rippling economic effects, as Senators Hutchison and Bond explain in their Washington Times op-ed:

Americans will be double-hit by the gas tax when it raises the costs of goods and services such as groceries and utilities they must continue to purchase. Energy costs are among businesses’ top operational expenses already. While companies face a variety of energy expenses, ranging from heating and cooling their work space to powering equipment and lighting, operating their vehicles is the most costly. Every company, from the small-town local florist to a package delivery service with nationwide operations, will be hard hit. In order for these businesses to withstand the heavier tax burden and to remain profitable, they will be forced to pass these energy cost increases along to consumers through higher prices.”

Some industries are more energy-intensive than others, and  farmers and ranchers are hit particularly hard. Heritage Senior Policy Analyst Ben Lieberman writes, “In addition to higher diesel fuel and electricity costs, prices for natural gas-derived fertilizers and other chemicals will also rise. Everything else affecting agriculture, from the cost of constructing farm buildings to the price of tractors and other farm equipment, will also go up.”

According to the Hutchison-Bond report, U.S. farmers and ranchers will incur higher fuel costs of $550 million in 2020. That figure will jump to $1.65 billion by 2050. According to The Heritage Foundation’s cap and trade analysis, farm profits are expected to decline by 28 percent in 2012 and will be an average 57 percent lower from 2012-2035. Congress is attempting to buy the farm vote by touting them as the beneficiaries of a carbon offset program because farmers can use cleaner technology, reduce nitrous oxide emissions, or simply not grow crops. However, the revenue gained from offset revenue will pale in comparison to lost income from cap and trade.(Heritage.org)

A Liberal Democrat calls it a Tax, for heaven’s sake: There’s a reason Democrat John Dingell (Mich.) called the cap-and trade portion of the House bill a “great big” tax.  Energy costs will soar under this bill, and those costs will be passed on to consumers.

While in the business of handing out $300 million in stimulus rebates to consumers who purchase Energy Star rated appliances, the US Department of Energy acknowledges in an internal audit that that it does not properly track whether products labeled with the Energy Star actually meet the required specifications for energy efficiency. (examiner)

2008 analysis:

The problem is: the benefits to cutting CO2 are negligible. Even the Environmental Protection Agency found that a 60 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 in the U.S. alone would affect world temperatures by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C. It would take a global policy with the same cuts to reduce world temperature by just 1 to 2 degrees C.

What about the costs? Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis calculated the costs of global warming legislation in the U.S. alone and the

cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per

household. Annual job losses exceed 800,000 for several years. That’s a scary price to pay for what little benefits we receive. (heritage.org)

And of course, we are the most evil on the planet in regards to global warming right? And when we co to Copenhagen in December for the Global Warming summit everyone in the world will happily jump on board just like they did in Kyoto when the evil George W Bush refused to bow to the pressure. Right?

China and India are the first and fourth biggest emitters of carbon dioxide emissions, respectively, but they refuse to commit to binding missions cuts. As “progressive” Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has said, “You know, the other countries won’t play ball…They cannot be given a free pass, and we cannot do cap and trade alone.”

The Chinese will be happy to see us cut our throats.

So will the EU.

The European Union has had a cap-and-tax regime since 1997.  But 12 of the 15 EU nations that signed on are failing to meet their targets.

Other countries have temporarily abandoned enacting crippling cap-and-trade schemes.  The Australian government’s Emission Trading Scheme legislation has been postponed until mid-2011 because of popular backlash fueled in part by increasing evidence against man-made global warming, as well as increasing recognition of the legislation’s economic toll.

But don’t worry, live in Hope and Change!

“The shifts will be significant,” the CBO director said. “We want to leave no misunderstanding that aggregate performance — the fact that jobs turn up somewhere else for some people — does not mean that there are not substantial costs borne by people, communities, firms in affected industries and affected areas. You saw that in manufacturing, and we would see that in response to changes that this legislation would produce.”

But Greenpeace USA’s climate director, Damon Moglen, questioned the bill’s strength.

“While the language the Senate unveiled today contains some improvements over the House bill, it fails to commit the U.S. to

meaningful, science-based greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed to protect us from runaway climate change,” Moglen said. “This proposal meets neither the needs of science nor those of the international community, which is currently negotiating the landmark climate treaty.”

Currently, 60% of the electricity generation in the U.S. comes from coal. The Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House would raise the cost of electricity generated by burning coal. Demand would therefore increase for less carbon-intensive generation sources, such as nuclear power or natural gas. John Shelk, president of the trade association Electric Power Supply Association, predicts that we will see an “increase in revenues to carbon-free power sources like nuclear.” He adds that “this is exactly what is supposed to happen.”

The fact that NO Nuclear plant has been built in this country for over 30 years is not a deterrent. Or the fact that the main reason they haven’t been built is the self-same “environmentalists.

And to give you an idea of what you’re up against:

Liberal post on heritage.org (I fixed the bad speeling and grammar): This is sad to say but Heritage foundation is a conservative right wing research center that includes their bias opinion. This isn’t necessarily true that cost will rise. Profit will fall and the owner can’t have that. They claim they ‘have’ to lay people off. Which isn’t true. Owners need to realize they have to start taking pay cuts for everyone to survive. Cap N Trade isn’t enough. Change the Economy entirely by adding more efficient wind energy and solar. Second use the oceans to create energy. We have the capabilities to do all of this but the upper-upper elite can’t stand the idea of losing just a little bit for the better of humanity. Its always about them. They drag us down with them in this sinking pit.

Don’t pay any attention the the envoronmentalist behind the curtain!

Recommend you read: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15762

Section 198 of the bill adds a presidentially-appointed “consumer advocate” to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which already has such an office. H.R. 2454 gives the Commission itself no authority over the advocate, but gives the advocate authority over almost all of FERC’s legal staff.

Thus the White House has you by the legal short-hairs.

We are from the government and we are here to save the planet and you.

A new report from the Environmental Protection Agency shows that 10 states, mostly in the Midwest, would be hardest hit. Rust belt

senators know the legislation will hurt industry and consumers in their region.  And the legislation will punish farmers by raising the

cost of fertilizer and diesel fuels, which will increase food prices.

So higher Electric Bills.

Higher Food Bills.

Higher Fuel costs.

Higher Unemployment

Higher Transportation costs.

Higher Energy costs for businesses passed on to you.

Aren’t you glad in 2013 you’ll have lower Health Care costs?!!