Big Thaw on Climate Bill
“Everybody thought health care was going to happen and energy was just going to sit there,” a Democratic leadership aide said.
Ed Markey said the critics and doubters on the outside weren’t aware of the progress being made behind the scenes in recent months.
“It’s down on the 10-yard line.” Story at Roll Call
The The American Clean Energy and Security Act has been ... OpenCongress
Joe Romm has more details than most so far on this newly introduced 992 page bill at Climate Progress
The history of cap and trade begins with sulfer dioxide ("acid rain" culprit) and the 1990 Clean Air Act. “Our proposal was at first ridiculed by environmentalists as little more than a license to pollute,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee and an early supporter of tradable permits. “But today, few dispute it is one of the government’s most successful regulatory programs ever.” more from today's NY Times
The "Ethanol Rebellion" of angry farm state Democrats and Republicans who don't like the way the Environmental Protection Agency is treating ethanol and biodiesel has already begun."I'll bring this climate bill down" without passage of Renewable Fuel Standard Improvement Act says Ag Committee chair, Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN). More on this at AgOnline
"No Asylum for Traitors or Cowards."
Original post at Knoxviews.com
Ed Markey said the critics and doubters on the outside weren’t aware of the progress being made behind the scenes in recent months.
“It’s down on the 10-yard line.” Story at Roll Call
The The American Clean Energy and Security Act has been ... OpenCongress
Joe Romm has more details than most so far on this newly introduced 992 page bill at Climate Progress
The history of cap and trade begins with sulfer dioxide ("acid rain" culprit) and the 1990 Clean Air Act. “Our proposal was at first ridiculed by environmentalists as little more than a license to pollute,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat from Tennessee and an early supporter of tradable permits. “But today, few dispute it is one of the government’s most successful regulatory programs ever.” more from today's NY Times
The "Ethanol Rebellion" of angry farm state Democrats and Republicans who don't like the way the Environmental Protection Agency is treating ethanol and biodiesel has already begun."I'll bring this climate bill down" without passage of Renewable Fuel Standard Improvement Act says Ag Committee chair, Representative Collin Peterson (D-MN). More on this at AgOnline
"No Asylum for Traitors or Cowards."
Original post at Knoxviews.com
Views: 0
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Debra Goldenberg on -
Great post, thanks! Will be interesting to see if any Republicans get on board.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Lykins on -
Thanks!
-
Permalink Reply by James Cranford on -
We're all going to have to work hard to get this Climate bill now coming out of committee defeated. It is yet just another piece of the Obama administration's tyrannical agenda. Don't believe the guise of this bill, based on cap and trade and for the purpose of reducing CO2 emission. That's just a facade for what it really is, a huge additional tax, on you and me.
If it were truly a strategy aimed at reducing "greenhouse" gas emissions, this bill would not have in its make-up CO2 credit allowances focussed to the coal industry, with petroleum and natural gas totally left out in the cold. Yes, you will hear talk about C02 sequestration technologies to be developed for coal. Decades away and not economical. No, the cap and trade program in this bill will be paid for directly by us, the taxpayers. To the tune of about $3,000 additional per year, cost to you, for energy consumption. And when that happens, the Obama administration will have even more control over capitalism and you and me. Do you want that?
Is this administration interested in a sensible strategy for reducing greenhouse gases and our dependence on foreign oil? No, they are interested in gaining control of our lives (power) and within that, redistributing wealth, nothing less. Look out!
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Lykins on
-
Democracy will always be run by those who show up, so I want to thank you for showing up, but what I want, very much, is for people to do a google search before they repeat anything they hear concerning policy. I've skimmed through your latest activity here a little and you can do better than this, James.
Here's a short history of the figure $3,128. When it appeared in the GOP.gov talking points memo of March 23 on the proposed budget, the House Republican Conference pointed to this report from the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. On April 1 MIT professor John Reilly, one of the authors of the report wrote a letter to to House Republican Leader John Boehner stating that the Republicans' methodology was flawed and that the study "has been misrepresented." Reilly wrote that this talking point "claims our report estimates an average cost per family of a carbon cap and trade program that would meet targets now being discussed in Congress to be over $3,000, but that is nearly 10 times the correct estimate which is approximately $340 -- only a part of which would be actual energy bill increases."
If anyone has any honest and original input about this bill, you can comment on it line by line here at OpenCongress.org. If you really want to get your hands dirty, The White House is currently having an open government brainstorming session from May 21st to 28th, 2009 here.
-
Permalink Reply by James Cranford on
-
Fair enough Eric. but whether the average consumer cost is $300 or $3000 does not matter to me, because I do not believe in the man-made global warming hypothesis, and with that, I strongly object to this bill's federal government intrusion on US industry and the American people. The core issue to me is energy security for the transportation sector and the outflow of US dollars for procuring foreign oil. I believe with a minimum of correctly targeted federal government provided incentives (not a cap and trade tax program), the private sector can lead us to energy independence. Yes, I do strongly support the encouragement of the use of compressed natural gas in the transportation sector, as well as other fuels to be developed that can substitute for foreign oil.
By the way, I knew of the history leading the MIT's rejection of the GOP's methodology. It would be interesting to know how many committee members have examined both methodologies closely enough to draw their own conclusions.
I believe there are forces of nature that do and will influence climate far greater than the effects of man's carbon dioxide producing activities. For example, in an argument counter to global warming, other scientists are also now predicting a coming 20 year mini ice-age for many regions of the world, due to solar inactivity. So, whose hypothesis is to be believed? And how in the name of good judgement could our federal government create a tax program like cap and trade, on the mere hypothesis of man-made global warming, that will certainly make the US less economically competitive?
I have watched Waxman's committee proceedings on this bill carefully, and have several times written congress, senators and the White House expressing my disagreements with this bill. And I have come to the conclusion the rubber-stamping Democrat majority care not one whit for opposing opinions and will not exert the effort to consider them.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Lykins on
-
Good job, James. Are you aware of any plans (bills in Congress that might actually have a chance of passing) that reflect these opposing opinions while building a cleaner energy infrastructure?
-
Permalink Reply by James Cranford on
-
Yes, I am aware of the Natural Gas Act. Think it is still in committee.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Lykins on
-
The Democrats pushed a NATGAS Act last year that died in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. The Pickens pushed HR 1835 seems destined for the same fate in the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. So where do we push for things like a Renewable Fuel Standard? The big climate bill seems to be the only game in town, so where, specifically, can we tweak it?
I really recommend reading the history of cap and trade link at the beginning of this discussion. A cap and trade system that came from the from the first Bush White House has already proven effective to control sulfur dioxide. Back then what was feared as Bush's "tyrannical agenda" turned out to be "one of the government’s most successful regulatory programs ever." The link, again.
Many regard it as the lowest-cost solution to a global pollution problem and a means of producing clean-energy breakthroughs. And it is a much easier political sell than a tax on fossil fuels. A measure of the political appeal of the final compromise on the 1990 cap-and-trade plan can be seen in the final votes: 401 to 25 in the House and 89 to 10 in the Senate.
There is a lot of work to be done on this climate bill, no question. The question is if we can write a bill that will be effective in creating new energy infrastructure that will keep us competitive in the 21st century, but there are a lot of unproductive partisan talking points from both sides intended to polarize voters instead of building competitive clean energy sources. As Boone has said, if we build toward clean energy and we turn out to be wrong on this global warming thing, we still have clean, abundant, domestic energy.
-
Permalink Reply by James Cranford on
-
I agree with one sentence you have written in your note above. And that is we need an energy policy that will keep the US competitive. I do not, and many do not, equate carbon dioxide with sulfur dioxide. Creating a new energy infrastructure that will keep us competitive does not need a cap and trade program, aimed at carbon dioxide emissions. And guess where the revenues of the cap and trade will be sent - straight to the funding of Obama's socialist health care program, not reinvested to a new energy infrastructure.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Lykins on
-
Dismissed. You wonder why opposing "opinions" are dismissed as the ignorant parroting of emotional keywords? Be sure to read Frank Luntz' 10 Rules for Stopping the "Washington Takeover" of Healthcare, for the love of God, before the Socialists come and tie your tubes, harvest your organs, and send you a bill.
-
Permalink Reply by James Cranford on
-
Here's a fact for you. The greatest proportion of Americans that do not have health care insurance are 18-34 year olds, who could afford it but choose, rightly or wrongly, not to purchase it. Is it the federal government's role to ensure these individuals have health insurance, at the expense of all taxpayers? I don't think so.
So, I will say good-bye to this dialogue, and focus my final comments to energy. And that is, in my opinion, any energy policy that does not have as its primary objective ridding the US of its dependence on foreign oil as quickly as possible is a policy gone astray. The frenzy over a hypothetical man made global warming phenomenon produces legislation like the cap and trade program. Want to stay in perpetual economic recession? Then, fail to find away to quickly replace petroleum in the transportation system with an economically viable substitute (that is, compressed natural gas), and we will. Gasoline price spikes correlate in time with each economic reccesion over the past 40 years. The Obama administration, with its focus virtually totally focussed to renewable "clean" fuels for transportation, is leading us right down a path to another recession. These fuels will not be available in any significant scale for many years to come. And there is another petroleum price spike coming soon. Its all about peak oil and energy security. Its not all about global warming. -
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Lykins on
-
Check out the video posted by Regional Leader Geoff Bailey Support the American Worker, Support a Renewable Electricity Standard
The AWEA wants 25 by 25: Current Energy Act compromise number is 15 by 20. Make some calls.
“We are disappointed that the renewable energy target in the bill could be as low as 12 percent by 2020—less than one-half the level proposed by President Obama and Chairman Markey,” American Wind Energy Association CEO Denise Bode said in a statement. “From an employment standpoint, by lowering the standard and limiting additional deployment, well over 100,000 jobs are being left on the cutting room floor,” added Bode.
A Union of Concerned Scientists study reported that a 25% RES by 2025 would create nearly three hundred thousand jobs.
House and Senate voting projections on Energy Act from Focus the Nation: see if your Rep is on the fence.
© 2013 Created by PickensPlan.
Powered by
Badges | Community Guidelines | Report an Issue | Terms of Service
