Cap and trade debate in the House, vote possible today

[Eredar Warlock]

http://www.c-span.org/

I am against this bill. A lot of this country is run by energy, and this legislature will increase the cost by more than the people in this economy can currently handle, not to mention it will put enormous pressure on the agricultural industry for its use of land, etc. Meaning that the price of food will rise. Not to mention the jobs that will be lost because of the pressure put on companies.

A lot of the argument for this bill seems to focus around energy independence. However, there are other, more cost effective ways of achieving this: Namely, producing our own fuel (Natural gas, drilling, nuclear energy etc). The problem with this bill is that China and India will not follow suit; in fact, they'll be looking to make a profit from this.

Also, look at the EU cap and trade. It has been a complete failure. Spain in particular has a dismal unemployment rate as a result of this.

Ultimately, the only ones who gets rich on this are Al Gore and General Electric (A decidedly liberal company). They stand to make billions from green energy measures. It makes me wonder on the credibility of global warming, and whether this isn't about money.

 

[evkl]

It seems eminently reasonable to me that there be some cap on energy consumption; whether it's a soft cap (buy your cap & trade license, go above and pay a fee per ton of CO2) or a hard cap (limit the number of cap and trade licenses, auction off new ones every once in a while, major fines for people who go above their limit). In the long run, we're all better off if we're encouraged to consume less energy.

I see the angle of your argument--that energy independence is the way to go--but structurally that isn't possible at the moment. We could put up massive offshore wind farms, for instance, to power most of the nation--but how long would they take to build? DRILL BABY DRILL is a bad strategy for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest is that exploiting many of our natural resources has an immense time delay. Cap and trade we can do now.

 

[Phoenicks]

It seems eminently reasonable to me that there be some cap on energy consumption; whether it's a soft cap (buy your cap & trade license, go above and pay a fee per ton of CO2) or a hard cap (limit the number of cap and trade licenses, auction off new ones every once in a while, major fines for people who go above their limit). In the long run, we're all better off if we're encouraged to consume less energy.

I see the angle of your argument--that energy independence is the way to go--but structurally that isn't possible at the moment. We could put up massive offshore wind farms, for instance, to power most of the nation--but how long would they take to build? DRILL BABY DRILL is a bad strategy for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest is that exploiting many of our natural resources has an immense time delay. Cap and trade we can do now.

Why should we implement cap and trade? It's not going to help us with any of the things you seem to want it to help us with.

 

[Netto Azure]

I fully support this bill in the House. ^_^

Al Gore profiting? That's just whatever. Do you even know how much ExxonMobil is profiting right now? $45.2 Billion. :O

Anyways any move to help protect the environment and promote new technologies is fine by me. People in the US have been far too long been taught that taxes are evil. This must change. :>

Anyways this bill is a big compromise already you know. We are lagging behind on new technology compared to Europe. What has the Republican and Bush "Volunteer" model brought us for the past 8 years? Nothing.

Thank you President Obama and Congress for acting on this. I applaud you and hope that Healthcare reform is next.

Also the Congressional Budget Office is with us this time. ;D

US President Barack Obama speaks at the White House (23 June 2009)

Mr Obama made climate change a key part of his election campaign
​

US Congress set for climate vote

The US Congress is preparing to vote on an historic climate change bill aimed at reducing the country's emissions.

The legislation will put curbs on pollution and apply market principles to attempts to tackle global warming.

The bill cleared a procedural hurdle in the House of Representatives by just 12 votes, and could be passed in a vote there later in the day.

Critics say the bill, a key election pledge of President Barack Obama, will cost jobs and raise prices.

Mr Obama said the Clean Energy and Security Act, which seeks cut emissions by 17% by 2020 and force a shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources, would "open the door to a new, clean energy economy" and reduce US dependence on imported oil.

It would also create thousands of jobs and "finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy", said the president.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hoped the passing of the bill would allow for "a celebration of American leadership taking its rightful place".

 

[Phoenicks]

Originally posted by Netto Azure:
Anyways any move to help protect the environment and promote new technologies is fine by me. People in the US have been far too long been taught that taxes are evil. This must change. :>

The government is always inept at spending those taxes. The government is inefficient and never gets the correct job done.

Anyways this bill is a big compromise already you know. We are lagging behind on new technology compared to Europe. What has the Republican and Bush "Volunteer" model brought us for the past 8 years? Nothing.

You want to emulate Europe?!? I'm sorry, but if we copy them, the US is truly doomed. They're worse off than we are right now.

Also the Congressional Budget Office is with us this time. ;D

Take a look at this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Here are some choice bits:

Originally posted in the Wall Street Journal:
Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

 

[Netto Azure]

The government is always inept at spending those taxes. The government is inefficient and never gets the correct job done.

You want to emulate Europe?!? I'm sorry, but if we copy them, the US is truly doomed. They're worse off than we are right now.

Take a look at this:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

So what if government makes mistakes. It's not as if "the free market" is always correct. See what happened last year if we leave them to their own devices. >.>

Hmph. Europeans are developing advanced solar, wind, and geothermal technologies faster than we are. I would rather be successful than not. <.<


Our Fossil Fuels are finite. I would rather support new technology research spurred by government pressure than waiting until the Middle East blows up in front of our faces. ^_^

So what if the now Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal is saying "we're going to pay more" it's just to garner more votes. We need the votes to pass this. It's not as if representatives weren't strong arm into getting your tax-cuts on 2001. >.>

 

[Eredar Warlock]

[

Al Gore profiting? That's just whatever. Do you even know how much ExxonMobil is profiting right now? $45.2 Billion. :O

And Al Gore stands to make at least as much. He has a lot of money invested in this. It really makes me question the ethics.

Anyways any move to help protect the environment and promote new technologies is fine by me. People in the US have been far too long been taught that taxes are evil. This must change. :>

It is projected to save the theorized increase in temperature by .2 of a degree. Not remotely exciting. The tradeoff of money that we as a taxpayer lose in bills alone isn't worth it. Like I said before, the agricultural industry gets screwed over pretty majorly here. Do you really want the price on pretty much all food to go up?

Anyways this bill is a big compromise already you know. We are lagging behind on new technology compared to Europe.

And look at what Europe and Australia are doing. They're backing off on their cap and trade legislation because it hasn't been effective. Australia in particular is seeking to kill it completely. What does that tell you?

Thank you President Obama and Congress for acting on this. I applaud you and hope that Healthcare reform is next.

Obama himself said that electricity bills will skyrocket under his cap and trade plan. Tell me, do you seriously want to pay more money for electricity?

 

[Phoenicks]

Originally posted by Netto Azure;
So what if government makes mistakes. It's not as if "the free market" is always correct. See what happened last year if we leave them to their own devices. >.>

The real cause of the financial crisis was the government intervening. Long story short, Congress pressured the banks (using Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac) to give loans to more people so more people without housing could afford it. When those people couldn't pay, the banks lost their loans, which started this crisis. If you want to blame anyone, blame Barney Fwank and "Nazi" Nancy Pelosi.

Hmph. Europeans are developing advanced solar, wind, and geothermal technologies faster than we are. I would rather be successful than not. <.<


Our Fossil Fuels are finite. I would rather support new technology research spurred by government pressure than waiting until the Middle East blows up in front of our faces. ^_^

So what if the now Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal is saying "we're going to pay more" it's just to garner more votes. We need the votes to pass this. It's not as if representatives weren't strong arm into getting your tax-cuts on 2001. >.>

You seem to be in favor of the costs. The costs are high, and it won't help our economy, especially in a recession. The benefits, as Arcane Mind already showed, won't be that big. If Europe is cutting back on cap-and-trade, we shouldn't seek to emulate them (since it was a failure).

 

[Netto Azure]

And Al Gore stands to make at least as much. He has a lot of money invested in this. It really makes me question the ethics.

Oh really. Any reputable news source? (Other than fringe/Fox News types)

It is projected to save the theorized increase in temperature by .2 of a degree. Not remotely exciting. The tradeoff of money that we as a taxpayer lose in bills alone isn't worth it. Like I said before, the agricultural industry gets screwed over pretty majorly here. Do you really want the price on pretty much all food to go up?

No. It does not matter if Climate Change is real or not. It is also a bill for Energy independence. To pressure our industries to develop new greener technologies for the future.

As for the fact that I believe Climate change is real...
I do not believe that the free market will bring us the technology in time to combat Climate Change the UN IPCC is 90% sure that man-made Climate Change is real and will severely damage our ecosystem and civilization in the future. The US EPA has also released new studies on how much impact Climate Change has already on the US.

And look at what Europe and Australia are doing. They're backing off on their cap and trade legislation because it hasn't been effective. Australia in particular is seeking to kill it completely. What does that tell you?

Those countries already have a Floor gas tax in place that fund Energy independence research. I also highly doubt that the C&T will be scrapped as it still has support.

Obama himself said that electricity bills will skyrocket under his cap and trade plan. Tell me, do you seriously want to pay more money for electricity?

Yes I do not mind paying for more in electricity bills to fund new technologies in the future. Fossil fuels are finite.
In fact I would rather have an out and out floor gasoline and carbon tax rather than the compromise Cap & Trade system. ^_^

The real cause of the financial crisis was the government intervening. Long story short, Congress pressured the banks (using Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac) to give loans to more people so more people without housing could afford it. When those people couldn't pay, the banks lost their loans, which started this crisis. If you want to blame anyone, blame Barney Frank and "Nazi" Nancy Pelosi.

But hey the Republicans also supported the so called "Homeownership society."
If these exotic mortgages were not in place the Housing bubble would never occur. >.>

You seem to be in favor of the costs. The costs are high, and it won't help our economy, especially in a recession. The benefits, as Arcane Mind already showed, won't be that big. If Europe is cutting back on cap-and-trade, we shouldn't seek to emulate them (since it was a failure).

Well this is the only Climate Change plan that has any traction in Congress so I'm more than willing to support it. We need to lead the way in the Dec. 2009 Coppenhagen Climate Change Summit. ^_^

 

[The Big Al]

I'm for it. We need something to kick industry in the pants to get them going on renewable energy and more energy efficient technology. They won't do it on their own.

Also, we're at global peak oil and we'll be using oil faster than we're discovering it. The age of oil is over, and we need better energy sources.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Oh really. Any reputable news source? (Other than fringe/Fox News types)

If Fox News is fringe, then why do they have the ratings that they have compared to say, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and the like? At any rate, it doesn't take a genius to know that Al Gore has a lot of money invested in Green technology, and will stand to make a lot of money on it.

No. It does not matter if Climate Change is real or not. It is also a bill for Energy independence. To pressure our industries to develop new greener technologies for the future.

Then why not a more cost effective approach? It doesn't make any sense at all to take the more expensive approach.

The US EPA has also released new studies on how much impact Climate Change has already on the US.

I trust the EPA about as much as I trust PETA.

Those countries already have a Floor gas tax in place that fund Energy independence research. I also highly doubt that the C&T will be scrapped as it still has support.

Look at gas prices in those countries. With the way America is on gas, this will not be good. Remember last summer's gas prices and how angry the public became?

Yes I do not mind paying for more in electricity bills to fund new technologies in the future. Fossil fuels are finite.
In fact I would rather have an out and out floor gasoline and carbon tax rather than the compromise Cap & Trade system. ^_^

I offer you to come live in a rural area. You'll change your tone very quickly.

But hey the Republicans also supported the so called "Homeownership society."
If these exotic mortgages were not in place the Housing bubble would never occur. >.>

The legislations that created the sub-prime environment were supported by Democrats during the Clinton administration who were hoping to make money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (I.E. Barney Frank and the like). Fannie and Freddie's failures were a big reason for the current economic mess.

I'm for it. We need something to kick industry in the pants to get them going on renewable energy and more energy efficient technology. They won't do it on their own.

And we as a consumer are forced to foot the bill.

I don't understand this logic.

EDIT: It looks like the bill may pass. I'm of the mind that when people see the costs, the Democrats are going to lose their jobs.

Congratulations, Socialism. You win.

 

[Netto Azure]

If Fox News is fringe, then why do they have the ratings that they have compared to say, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, and the like? At any rate, it doesn't take a genius to know that Al Gore has a lot of money invested in Green technology, and will stand to make a lot of money on it.

Well Fox News is quite fringe. People listen to it just "for entertainment" remember? Didn't people say That Rush on the Radio is entertainment?

So what? He believes in Green Technologies. It's as if your saying Green alternative energy sources are a bad thing. >.>
As I said Fossil fuels are finite~

Then why not a more cost effective approach? It doesn't make any sense at all to take the more expensive approach.

How long have we'd tried the "Volunteer cost-effective" approach?

10 years after Kyoto and still nothing out of the Private industries as they built Hummers and SUV's

I trust the EPA about as much as I trust PETA.

I trust the EPA more than FOX News. :>

Look at gas prices in those countries. With the way America is on gas, this will not be good. Remember last summer's gas prices and how angry the public became?

Yup. And at that time Energy Independence shot up to the top of people's list of concerns. That certainly made me happy there. ^_^

I offer you to come live in a rural area. You'll change your tone very quickly.

No I won't, I lived in one of the provinces of Canada (Manitoba) and I was more than happy with my time there thank you very much. :3

The legislations that created the sub-prime environment were supported by Democrats during the Clinton administration who were hoping to make money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (I.E. Barney Frank and the like). Fannie and Freddie's failures were a big reason for the current economic mess.

Well at the same time Phill Graham's bill in 2000 repealed the Glass-Steagal Act which separated investment banks and regular banks. >.>

Both Parties are to fault and I would go ahead and say "VOTE GREEN!" but I'm realistic and want my vote to count. :O

And we as a consumer are forced to foot the bill.

I don't understand this logic.

Well we are going to buy their products anyway. Ever heard of the nudge economic concept?

 

[Eredar Warlock]

Well Fox News is quite ringe people listen to it just "for entertainment" remember? Didn't people say That Rush on the Radio is entertainment?

I'm willing to bet you've never watched the network.

So what? He believes in Green Technologies. It's as if your saying Green alternative energy sources are a bad thing. >.>

It's not a bad thing. It's too expensive. THAT's the problem I have with it. As long as I get my electricity and can drive my car, I don't care if it comes from a bucket of coal or a bucket of piss. What I care about is how much of my paycheck goes to my bill.

Yup. And at that time Energy Independence shot up to the top of people's list of concerns. That certainly made me happy there. ^_^

No I won't, I lived in one of the provinces of Canada (Manitoba) and I was more than happy with my time there thank you very much. :3

Big families are screwed with these "energy efficient cars". People are not going to buy them. Rural areas like where I live need large trucks to transport things. This legislature screws us over.

Well we are going to buy their products anyway. Ever heard of the nudge economic concept?

If we run out of money, we won't buy anything. In other words, lowering our standard of living.

Also, why should we do this when China and India will not? They're a bigger source of pollution than we are.

 

[Misty]

it's going to pass the house by an extremely slim margin. this bill is DOA in the senate.

frankly, cap and trade isn't going to work for this. the only solution is large-scale investment in new, low-carbon technologies.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

It's passed. 219 by 212.

Slim margin indeed.

 

[Netto Azure]

US House supports emissions bill
​

The US House of Representatives has passed a historic climate change bill aimed at reducing the country's emissions.
The legislation will put curbs on pollution and apply market principles to attempts to tackle global warming.
It was passed by a narrow margin of 219 votes to 212, but critics say this key election pledge of President Barack Obama will cost jobs and raise prices.
The president said the vote represented "enormous progress".
However, it still has to be passed by the US Senate before it can become law, and it will face another tough fight there.
Mr Obama earlier said the Clean Energy and Security Act, which seeks cut emissions by 17% by 2020 and force a shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources, would "open the door to a new, clean energy economy" and reduce US dependence on imported oil.
It would also create thousands of jobs and "finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy", said the president.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hoped the passing of the bill would allow for "a celebration of American leadership taking its rightful place".

I'm willing to bet you've never watched the network.

I don't have cable. :<
Last time I did though they were analyzing how Obama's use of his left hand during the O'Reily interview means he was aggressive. Pure entertainment right there. And I do read some FOX articles for teh Lulz. :>

It's not a bad thing. It's too expensive. THAT's the problem I have with it. As long as I get my electricity and can drive my car, I don't care if it comes from a bucket of coal or a bucket of piss. What I care about is how much of my paycheck goes to my bill.

Either way I don't want to wait until the last minute and go to war for the last bucket of Oil in the Middle East. :<

Big families are screwed with these "energy efficient cars". People are not going to buy them. Rural areas like where I live need large trucks to transport things. This legislature screws us over.

Well the thing is with the new National Milage EPA regulations the (Now government owned) Car Companies will be forced to also make fuel efficient trucks. ^_^

If we run out of money, we won't buy anything. In other words, lowering our standard of living.

If we're so deep in debt due to rising college cost. I won't bother getting a career. Anyways either way we are going to save more money in the long run with Energy efficiency and Energy Independence. I don't want to be dictated by Oil Shieks.

Also, why should we do this when China and India will not? They're a bigger source of pollution than we are.

Well we need to be an example for them. The United States still pollutes more CO2 and atther pollutants than most of the world COMBINED. >.>

Frankly, cap and trade isn't going to work for this. the only solution is large-scale investment in new, low-carbon technologies.

Then again the Democrats are too spineless and Republicans too scared to pass a Carbon and Gasoline tax to fund the "large-scale investment in new, low-carbon technologies."

And the private sector will need government support for that. I mean nothing happened after Kyoto and the Bush "Volunteer Program"

 

[Nicoleta01]

I'm against this bill, as Arcane has said, rural people will be screwed over with this. Energy independence shouldn't come at the cost of killing the consumer who will probably bear the vast majority of the brunt in higher prices in products.
Europe isn't something America should emulate IMO. Denmark has the most Wind-powered electricity, yet their electricity rates are the highest in Europe. Green is expensive in terms of energy, not the time to kill the people for "independence."

 

[evkl]

You know, it's ironic. When regulation earns people ridiculous profits, it's corrupt. When deregulation earns people ridiculous profits, it's capitalism!

 

[Eredar Warlock]

I don't have cable. :<
Last time I did though they were analyzing how Obama's use of his left hand during the O'Reily interview means he was aggressive. Pure entertainment right there. And I do read some FOX articles for teh Lulz. :>

Find out for yourself what Fox News is before listening to liberal haters who don't like any kind of conservative voice.

Either way I don't want to wait until the last minute and go to war for the last bucket of Oil in the Middle East. :<

Then we drill our own. Pretty simple solution.

Well the thing is with the new National Milage EPA regulations the (Now government owned) Car Companies will be forced to also make fuel efficient trucks. ^_^

Yeah, lightweight trucks that have good mileage but no horsepower and are otherwise useless. People will not buy them.

If we're so deep in debt due to rising college cost. I won't bother getting a career. Anyways either way we are going to save more money in the long run with Energy efficiency and Energy Independence. I don't want to be dictated by Oil Shieks.

Drilling, nuclear energy, natural gas.

Well we need to be an example for them. The United States still pollutes more CO2 and atther pollutants than most of the world COMBINED. >.>

...Are you serious. Are you really that naive? Do you really think they will pass up on the money they make/will potentially make? The world doesn't work that way.

You know, it's ironic. When regulation earns people ridiculous profits, it's corrupt. When deregulation earns people ridiculous profits, it's capitalism!

Politicians get money by leeching it from taxpayers. Businessmen get money because they scratched and clawed their way to the top and earned that money. Al Gore stands to make money from the taxpayers on potentially bogus science.

 

[Phoenicks]

Originally posted by Netto Azure;
No. It does not matter if Climate Change is real or not. It is also a bill for Energy independence. To pressure our industries to develop new greener technologies for the future.

Government actions prevent us from drilling in the US enough oil to be self-sufficient. If it weren't for them, we could drill enough oil to support ourselves.

As for the fact that I believe Climate change is real...
I do not believe that the free market will bring us the technology in time to combat Climate Change the UN IPCC is 90% sure that man-made Climate Change is real and will severely damage our ecosystem and civilization in the future. The US EPA has also released new studies on how much impact Climate Change has already on the US.

First, climate change is a natural part of the world. It's inaccurate to lable it as climate change, because the climate naturally changes. We didn't kill the dinosaurs with climate change, did we? And how do you prove that humans have affected that? The environment is so complicated, that it's arrogant to assume that we know how it works well enough to say that something's off track. Also, where are the links to your studies?

Yes I do not mind paying for more in electricity bills to fund new technologies in the future. Fossil fuels are finite.

I suggest you donate some money then, there are plenty of societies and charities for that sort of thing.

In fact I would rather have an out and out floor gasoline and carbon tax rather than the compromise Cap & Trade system. ^_^

The middle of a recession isn't the time to start launching new tax programs, let alone very costly and stifiling ones.

But hey the Republicans also supported the so called "Homeownership society."
If these exotic mortgages were not in place the Housing bubble would never occur. >.>

It was mostly the democrats. That doesn't mean that I liked it when the Republicans did it either. It doesn't matter who did it, but what was done. I just used Barney and Pelosi as examples because they were some of the frontrunners.

So what? He believes in Green Technologies. It's as if your saying Green alternative energy sources are a bad thing. >.>
As I said Fossil fuels are finite~

Fossil Fuels being finite is true, but when will it run out? There's no convincing proof to suggest that they'll run out any time soon. So what if in a couple hundred years we're out of fossil fuels to burn?

I don't have cable. :<
Last time I did though they were analyzing how Obama's use of his left hand during the O'Reily interview means he was aggressive. Pure entertainment right there. And I do read some FOX articles for teh Lulz. :>

Which shows were you watching? Try watching Glenn Beck, Neil Cavuto, and Brett Bayer.

Either way I don't want to wait until the last minute and go to war for the last bucket of Oil in the Middle East. :<

What proof do you have that it's going to run out anytime soon? Again, who cares if in a couple hundred years we're out of fossil fuels?

Well the thing is with the new National Milage EPA regulations the (Now government owned) Car Companies will be forced to also make fuel efficient trucks. ^_^

Have you seen some of those 'Green cars'? They're really not quite safe. I've seen some of them, and I would never drive in one of those unprotective deathtraps.

If we're so deep in debt due to rising college cost. I won't bother getting a career. Anyways either way we are going to save more money in the long run with Energy efficiency and Energy Independence. I don't want to be dictated by Oil Shieks.

I don't want to be dictated by other countries asking us to pay off our debts with them.

Well we need to be an example for them. The United States still pollutes more CO2 and atther pollutants than most of the world COMBINED. >.>

Why?

In conclusion, why do we have to go 'green', amd why should we pay the costs?