Most Recent News



Sheraton San Diego

 
Cap and trade bill passes House PDF Print E-mail
Environment and Resources - Air
BY Steve Hunyar   
Monday, 29 June 2009 11:33
En masse, Americans are unaware the House of Representatives passed the single largest tax increase in American history on June 26.  The bill is now headed for the Senate.  The Waxman Markey Bill is a greenhouse gas emissions tax that passed by a narrow margin of 219-212.  Not one Congressman admitted to reading the entire 1,000-page bill, or the subsequent 300-page addendum added the day before the vote.

The Waxman Markey Bill is essentially the buying and selling of emissions permits.  It establishes a new market of buying, selling and trading carbon allowances.  It is something the Democrats have been trying to accomplish since the inception of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama stated, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." Further recognizing that industry would not absorb these costs, he went on, "They (the energy industry) would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money; they will pass that on to consumers."  Industry analysts and third-party think tanks have estimated additional energy costs of $700 to $1,400 per family, per year, and no one on the left is disputing these numbers.

The bill is a brilliantly conceived scheme to establish an entirely new industry, with an entirely new tax opportunity for the government.  Given the current economy, the joblessness, and anti-tax environment foreshadowed by Californians, Obama and Congress fully understand they cannot increase traditional tax sources such as income tax; therefore, it's time to concoct a new one.

However, the piste de résistance is the bill itself.  It does little or nothing to actually reduce carbon emissions. The bill calls for a 5 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020.  Even most global warming advocates further agree it is globally insignificant, as the real emissions culprits--China, Brazil, India, and many developing nations--are producing vast amounts of CO2.  China surpassed the U.S. last year in output, yet is doing nothing to reduce its emissions. In fact, pollution in China is staggeringly high and is on an aggressive march upward.

Since this cap and trade bill doesn't truly reduce emissions output in a meaningful manner, the only logical explanation remaining is that the bill is a new tax, a way for those with an enormous lobbying contingent to become much wealthier.

Many of the con artists are Democrats in Washington who have already invested heavily into these companies, knowing they were about to spawn a new industry with new money making opportunities.  The corruption in Washington is apparent, as politicians such as Rep. Nancy Pelosi have pre-invested into cap and trade companies.  If this was an existing private industry, this would be considered illegal trading. Pelosi would be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading and using her influence to start the entire industry in the first place.  Al Gore also stands to make hundred of millions with a carbon credit-tracking software company he started.

If I were a true global warming environmentalist, I would be outraged that the bill has little or no scientific impact on carbon dioxide output.  It simply creates a new tax.  Americans are being conned by a few who stand to profit handsomely by the very industry they have created, and they do so without any conscientious or moral turpitude whatsoever.

Disturbingly, pop culture's tentacles have latched onto the American soul and have become a higher priority than the single largest tax increase in U.S. history.  The Union-Tribune dedicated almost 800 percent more space on its front page on Saturday, June 27, to the death of Michael Jackson than it did to this new tax.  The coincidental death of Jackson was a perfect cover for the single largest tax increase on Americans.

When gas prices went up to $5 per gallon last year, Obama stated, "I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment."  Apparently, he wished the prices would have increased more slowly, so as not to precipitate the outrage Americans were showing and the hit to the American pocketbook.  He never denounced the price increase in the first place.  That was a clarion call to the oil industry to raise prices more slowly this time, and that he would not stand in the way.

We are currently seeing that effect as the prices at the pump outpace the actual market price for a barrel of oil.  Lest we not forget, higher gasoline prices catapulted the world into the current economic abyss.  Higher gasoline prices translate into larger revenues and profits for the oil companies, which in turn convert into more taxes feeding Washington's coiffeurs.  While Exxon Mobile makes between 25 and 35 cents per gallon in profits, Washington D.C. makes approximately $1.40 per gallon in total taxes on gasoline when gas is at $3 per gallon.  In 2007, the U.S. Government collected $40 billion in corporate tax from Exxon Mobile alone.

The Democrat-controlled U.S. government has found a new way to tax Americans.  They have done so rather stealthily, using science that has not had enough debate.  As with the TARP funds and the stimulus bill, Congress is moving at an unprecedented pace, taking advantage of Americans while we are still trying to catch our breath in this economy.

America, it's time to realize what higher energy prices and the cap and trade bill truly are-- trillions of dollars for the federal government, on the back of every American, rich or poor.  It is nothing more and nothing less.  Follow the money.

Steve Hunyar is the author of America the Disposable; The Culture War During the Era of Apathy and host of the radio program The East County Underground. To contact Steve, please email him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
Del.icio.us     Digg This!    Facebook    Furl     Google     Ma.gnolia    NetVibes    Reddit     Stumble It!     Technorati    Windows Live    Yahoo MyWeb

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed
...
339
If you check the scientific evidence, the planet has been cooling and a recent EPA report to that effect (one of many) specifically shows that while carbon dioxide continues to rise, planet temperatures continue to drop – world wide. The report also stipulates the planet will continue to cool until 2030. Ask anyone who lives in the Midwest about 2009 winter temperatures.

The polar ice cap has rebuilt over 1990 levels. The Shasta glacier is growing at an unprecedented rate. Temperatures across the U.S. are many degrees below average temps. The list goes on. The GW lobby and PR machine rebranded global warming to climate change for a reason.

The research is unclear and more and more scientists, meteorologists, and climatologists continue to back the theories against GW. We need more research before we throw trillions of dollars at a solution that does little to actually help.

This bill is not better than nothing. It will benefit large corporations and the government only – on the backs of the poor and middle class America. Why do you think Wall Street is pushing the plan. There is an entire new derivative industry coming as part of this “solution”. It’s a simple scam to raise taxes by sucking more money out of your wallet. It is a government tax and new method for some corporations to profit in ways that will not be realized for 10 years.

Remember global cooling in the 1970’s? Please do your research and stop reading ideological blogs to get your facts. Keep the politics out of the science.

Let me ask you both 2 simple questions. Who benefits financially from Cap and Trade legislation? How does the opposition benefit fighting this issue? Before you say the energy companies oppose it, check again. Most large energy entities support it. Hmm…..
Steve Hunyar , July 02, 2009
...
331
Steve,
This bill is better than nothing. 1998 - 2008 was the single hottest decade on record. Global warming is here, period. If you have lived here more than 10 years, you would know our summers are now humid, and we get rain in August when we never had that before. Anyone living on a hillside, or a cliff/canyon should be very concerned about our weather, because their house is most likely going to slide when we have more rain and erosion year after year.
Further, you complain about a tax on the people; well how do you justify the enormous subsidies and tax loopholes enjoyed by the energy companies now? And, how do you justify an economy in which we are held hostage by our reliance on foreign oil and in which only last summer we saw gas prices exceed $4/gallon?
The point of this bill is to cap global warming pollution, put Americans to work building out our clean energy future, and free us from our dependence on foreign oil.
I agree with the other commenter, your article is really an editorial, and should be presented as such.
ButtonB , July 01, 2009
...
327
Interesting rant disguised as an article, it should be under a tab of editorials- not presented as news.
While I have a similar reaction to paying more for anything, and this bill will impact every tangible and intangible purchase that we make, I accept that we need to make a change.
Economically, market forces have directed policy makers to the cap-and-trade formula, as opposed to a carbon charge (tax if you prefer). The British weekly the Economists and other similar minded publications actually advocate for a carbon charge/tax as more straight forward, which cuts against the hidden tax argument you make. However, businesses realize that they have a bigger incentive in a cap-and-trade market. This is similar to the SO2 federal legislation that passed in the 1990s and all observers consider a success. In short, this model makes business sense when well crafted; Europe is tweaking their market currently.

I would also like to address your comment about the lack of benefits, only a 5% decrease by 2020. The motivation here as, I understand it, is to ease the nation into the market. This also goes to allocating 85% of the credits initially, as opposed to auctioning them off as the environmentalists desire.

While this bill in the current form is far from perfect, it is amendable. Also, it will face staunch critics in the Senate, and might not make it to the President to sign before the UNFCCC conference this December in Copenhagen, a desire of the administration.

Additionally, I believe that specific fees can be apportioned. Meaning that this money could be allocated away from the general coffers and back to the citizens via tax credits or technology grants for more efficient technology.

In sum, there are solutions out there- we just have to look for them.
Todd Headden , June 30, 2009

Write comment

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy