April 18, 2019, 10:09:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Barack's $650 billion tax increase, will it lower pollution? Or just raise $$$?  (Read 1529 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



« on: May 19, 2009, 07:50:26 PM »

Quote
US President Barack Obama had expected 100% of these permits being auctioned and had planned to use the resultant US $650B over ten years to pay for a tax credit aimed to offset the higher energy costs expected because of cap and trade and to reduce the number of people moving into energy poverty.

A shell gave to give 'relief' to those moving into 'energy poverty' - all of these shell games seem to mean someone with Washington connections makes big profits.  The well connected take a piece of the action...

Quote
Second, its passage will significantly increase energy and supply chain costs, only partly offset by tax credits and other social security payments. Third, it will create a new bureaucracy regulating carbon emissions and a new financial services business carbon credit trading. Finally, it will do little to cut emissions.

Quote
Eventually, the US will see that it is getting no short-term reduction in emissions from its cap and trade and will start to want to sell more permits to create a real market. Opposition from industry, especially the transportation and energy sectors, will be fierce. There will also be a backlash from tax payers who will have see higher costs without any social or environmental benefit.


Quote
What the American Clean Energy and Security Act will do is delay the real debate about emissions and the environment until the next Obama administration, when the environment will likely become a more urgent issue.

http://www.troymedia.com/NewsBeats/Environment_News_Beat/2009/05/TMC051909.htm

If there was a real green revolution, real innovation - it would reduce pollution and not cost more. 

Cap & trade just makes the rich richer and the rest of us poorer.

It's the "Anti-American Administration" making things better for global corporations and super rich people.


jmho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2009, 07:59:46 PM »

Quote
The threat of a cap-and-trade swindle

The closer the United States gets to adopting a cap-and-trade system to control greenhouse gas emissions, the more frightening it gets.

Not because the plan now under debate in the U. S. Congress would complicate the lives of energy producers, or impose new costs on consumers. Those drawbacks might be bearable if the system was truly designed to reduce emissions, and if the expense was reasonable. The alarm results from increasing evidence that emissions have become a secondary concern of a plan whose main purpose is to serve the partisan interests of the Democratic Party.

Quote
The U. S. plan would similarly boost Democrat fortunes by providing a multi-billion-dollar windfall to power producers largely clustered in states loyal to the party. As outlined by National Post columnist David Frum this week, the bill would include a system in which carbon emitters could buy the right to continue emitting by purchasing credits from cleaner companies. This is a key feature of cap-and-trade plans, but Democrats have stacked the deck by proposing to award allotments of emission credits, free of charge, to "clean" firms, which could then earn billions by selling them to big emitters.

The companies that would benefit from these freebies are clustered in the Northeast and the West Coast --areas which tend to vote Democrat. Those forced to buy the credits, mainly states dependent on coal-burning power plants, tend to be located in middle America, in states that favour Republicans. The profit generated would not go to Washington to offset the higher costs contained in the system, as President Barack Obama intended, but to shareholders in "clean" firms in Democratic states. As Mr. Frum pointed out, it's not environmentalism, it's a racket intended to maintain the political fortunes of the Democratic Congress.

Quote
...The Democrats' evident determination to use global warming to mask a transfer of wealth from one part of the country to another...for the benefit of more Liberal-friendly parts of the country.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/threat+trade+swindle/1602041/story.html

Why does cleaning up the planet or just the air have to be a profit making opportunity?

Why should anyone profit?  Why should there be traders, gamblers, and others in the new green plan for America?

What happened to just doing the right thing for everyone?  Making the globe cleaner for everyone?  An not, bankrupting the nation again?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



« Reply #2 on: May 19, 2009, 08:08:43 PM »

API's Gerard: Allowances uneven in House's cap-and-trade bill

Quote
"When you look at the way they distributed 85% of the allowances, some went to segments that aren't carbon bidders. We believe it should be equitable across all carbon sources. The Waxman-Markey approach isn't. Those who produce and use petroleum are receiving little and being asked to account for much," he said.

The bill's economic implications also have not been fully considered nor does it recognize that US refiners operate in a global industry, Gerard said. "There are tariff and rebate provisions in the legislation designed to offset impacts on the steel and other industries, but the refining sector is specifically excluded. There is no transition, no ability to stay competitive. There needs to be recognition of those industries which use petroleum products as well," he said.


Quote
"Clearly, the incentive and direction would be to push jobs overseas. If you can't succeed in a globally competitive environment because of costs in the United States, you start to look elsewhere. That means high-paying jobs would move overseas, which is what people who are leading this effort say they want to avoid," Gerard added.


Quote
American Gas Association Pres. David N. Parker applauded the bill's provision which does not bring commercial or residential gas customers under the cap-and-trade system until 2016, however. "By using energy wisely and making smart choices every day, our customers have reduced their per-household consumption so dramatically that there has been virtually no growth in emissions in nearly three decades, despite a 70 percent increase in households using natural gas," he noted.


 an angelic monkey  American households are already doing the right thing and how much extra did it cost?

http://www.ogj.com/display_article/362592/7/ONART/none/GenIn/1/API's-Gerard:-Allowances-uneven-in-House's-cap-and-trade-bill/

No jobs for you America.  Chairman MaObama has a better plan! (I heard that on the radio today.)

Green jobs and a cleaner environment shouldn't cost more.  Innovate and do it better and make it cheaper so it wins hands down - just like all those 'cheap imports' due to free trade.

If 'cheap imports' are good so good for Americans, cheap and cleaner energy should be even better.

However, if energy was cheaper and cleaner, politicians, global companies, rich people, and rich traders and speculators wouldn't be making money on the backs of American jobs and poor working people.

jmho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



« Reply #3 on: May 19, 2009, 08:15:31 PM »

Quote
Climate Bill's Clean Energy R&D Investments May Be 60 Times Smaller than President Obama's Budget

Compared to President Obama's promises and the recommendations of a variety of energy experts alike, the ACES climate and clean energy bill's investments in clean energy are an order of magnitude too small.

Posted by Jesse Jenkins on May 18, 2009 at 11:04 PM
...
Yet the bill before us, depending on the allowance value it establishes, would invest just one-twentieth to one-sixtieth of the $15 billion President Obama has pledged -- and specifically requested from Congress. Furthermore, this new energy R&D spending may amount to just a five percent increase in current federal energy R&D budgets.

...the total investments in a new clean energy economy, more broadly defined, are an order of magnitude smaller than proposals advanced by the Breakthrough Institute, Apollo Alliance and others have deemed necessary to drive clean energy innovation, create millions of new energy jobs, and jump-start a prosperous, clean energy economy.


lots of charts and facts and sources here -
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2009/05/how_do_climate_bills_clean_ene.shtml#more

Where are all the green jobs coming from?
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



« Reply #4 on: May 19, 2009, 08:16:46 PM »

No jobs for you American worker.  No job no money.  No money no buy new car.  Only rich drive cars.

Problem solved...
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 6.118 seconds with 19 queries.