Cap and Trade

Get ready for the biggest tax increase in U.S. history...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Lucas McCain wrote:

Get ready for the biggest tax increase in U.S. history...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

OOoooooo Heaven help us all!

Another tax on the middle class.. Another obama lie..

Lucas McCain wrote:

Another tax on the middle class.. Another obama lie..

What exactly did he lie about?

^ Not raising taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year..

Lucas McCain wrote:

^ Not raising taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year..

Do you think the price of a stamp a day is worth calling Obama a liar over?

Quote :

Responding to Republicans who have said a cap-and-trade bill could cost thousands of dollars a year for the average family, the Democratic sponsors of the bill are citing a new study from the Congressional Budget Office that they say shows their plan will be affordable.

"For the cost of about a postage stamp a day, all American families will see a return on their investment as our nation breaks our dependence on foreign oil, cuts dangerous carbon pollution and creates millions of new clean energy jobs that can't be shipped overseas," Rep. Edward Markey said in a June 22, 2009, press release jointly issued with the co-sponsor, Rep. Henry Waxman.

Waxman and Markey, from California and Massachusetts respectively, are the authors of a bill that would set up a market for power companies and other polluters to buy and trade carbon credits. The goal is to force them to cut their harmful emissions and lower carbon pollution 83 percent by 2050. But critics say polluters will inevitably pass the cost of buying credits or cleaner technologies on to the consumer.

Putting a pricetag on such a complex plan is tricky and controversial, as we note today in our article Your Guide to the Cap-and-Trade Estimates. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, says that cap-and-trade could raise the average family's annual energy bill by $1,241. House Republicans have said that cap-and-trade could cost consumers up to $3,100, a figure they say came from a Massachusetts Institute of Technology report. But the writers of that report admonished the GOP for incorrectly interpreting their work; intially, the authors predicted it would cost consumers about $340 annually, and have since updated that estimate to $800.

Waxman and Markey are relying on a June 19 Congressional Budget Office analysis of their bill. The CBO is a well-respected, independent arm of Congress, but we have found its findings are occasionally mischaracterized by members of Congress. So we wanted to check whether Waxman is correctly summarizing the CBO's findings.

Indeed, the report cited by Markey and Waxman predicts the bill would have a net annual economywide cost of $22 billion — or about $175 per household — in 2020. Divide that number by 365 days, and you get about 48 cents. A first-class stamp costs 44 cents, so Waxman is close.

The CBO's estimate includes several assumptions about important decisions that still must be made by Congress, such as how much energy companies will pay to buy and trade polluting credits. But it's worth reading the fine print on this one, because CBO notes that the actual cost per family will vary depending on income. For example, low-income consumers could expect to save $40 a year, while wealthy people will see a net increase for energy costs of $235 to $340 every year. And the analysis does not include the costs or benefits of other parts of the bill, such as government efforts to quickly develop new technology, wrote CBO director Douglas Elmendorf in a June 20 blog post.

It's also important to note that the costs will vary year to year. As the bill stands, polluting allowances will initially be given away for free. But by 2035, about 70 percent of those allocations will be sold by the government. Supporters of the bill say federal revenue from the program would be used to pay for tax credits and rebates for the middle class.

CBO chose 2020 as a milestone for its analysis because it's a point at which the program would have been in effect for eight years, giving the economy and polluters time to adjust. But had CBO chosen a later date, the cost per family may have been higher because the government would gradually be charging polluters more.

Waxman and Markey are clear about these variables and omissions in their press statement. They note that the poorest people will gain from the bill, and point out that the study does not include every element that could contribute to cap-and-trade's cost.

But critics are more skeptical of the report. By not including all variables, the CBO report "grossly underestimates costs of cap-and-trade," said a memo from the Heritage Foundation, which has published many articles opposing the proposal. Among other things, Heritage says the study is flawed because it doesn't address economic changes resulting from restricted energy use and potential job losses.

For this Truth-O-Meter item, we are not addressing which study is best, but focusing on whether Markey correctly described the CBO's findings. He was close -- off by just 4 cents -- and he indicated it was an approximation because he said "about a postage stamp a day." So we find the statement True.

Link

If your happy with the estimate in your article, that's fine.. But I'll take fact over spin.. How many "cheap" lies will it take to make a expensive lie??

The cost may start at $175 a year, but what you must look at is government speak. They will tell you the utopian portion, but leave out the reality.In the article 'The Cap and Fiction' it states that the report is so loaded with "caveats as to render it useless."

The tax bill is slow to kick in with higher costs in the early years. As time goes by the lowering of carbon emmisions will cause the GDP to suffer. The CBO notes in a footnote, "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product that could result from the cap."

Yes the cost early will be low, but as with all government programs they become more costly as the years go by. Plus this one will have few benefits and the great negative of taking money out of our pockets and giving it to an increasing dictatorial government. With less money in our pockets, we buy fewer goods and servives. Which means businesses will lay-off people, because of lower sales.

Lucas McCain wrote:

If your happy with the estimate in your article, that's fine.. But I'll take fact over spin.. How many "cheap" lies will it take to make a expensive lie??

What you call fact, I call opinion. So whatever Lucas. Always pick the report that makes him look the worse.

Even your report stated there was errors and omissions to please certain demographics..

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, 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.

Seems the Dems don't care what happens when the policy fails(as all liberal policies do)

Some good news... http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/23765755/hot-air.htm#q=epa
Maybe this will put Obama on the "hot seat"..

Umm ok.

You can read the comments that the CEI submitted to the EPA on EPA's proposed endangerment finding here, along with the emails. The censored report, by Alan Carlin and John Davidson, is here.

So, who would you guys like to be president? Since Obama is apparently not doing his job according to you...who can pick up all the pieces? Who is the man who can fix everything? I want to meet him or her.

And as far as global warming goes. I certainly hope you guys end up being correct because if you are not...well....we're all screwed.

I"m willing to give Obama time, but don't think for one second that I won't call him out on things that are wrong for the country in my view. He works for us, it's in our best interest to let him know he's blowing it. The same went for Bush and every president before him.

Mongo wrote:

I"m willing to give Obama time, but don't think for one second that I won't call him out on things that are wrong for the country in my view. He works for us, it's in our best interest to let him know he's blowing it. The same went for Bush and every president before him.

I guess I just can't understand why Bush had such a long leash with people like you to screw up all sorts of things but Obama can't fart without being told it stunk too much. Bush did things to this country that we will never recover from but there was no outcry then. Heck, now the things he did or started are being blamed on Obama. Even after he's gone some people can't admit fault. And I'm tired of people saying that we shouldn't dwell on the past. The past administration is what got us into this shape. In order to move forward and fix things, we have to address the total screw ups of the past. I can admit when democrats do things wrong but the fact is that what Obama has done that has angered republicans is small potatoes compared to Bush's damage.

This whole Global Warming stuff is starting to shift. Many countries are second-guessing the whole "inconvenient truth". Essentially warming has flat-lined since 2001.
Australia who elected a president similar to Obama wanting to combat global warming has sidelined their "going green".
One of their reps came to the USA and quizzed the Obama team looking for assurances about combating global warming...he got no answers and went back home and voted "no".
Spain which has aggressively "gone green" and is one of the world leaders in producing windmills and such for energy presently has 18% unemployment. For every job going green it created, they lost two jobs.
This bill makes no sense.

Lucas McCain wrote:

This whole Global Warming stuff is starting to shift. Many countries are second-guessing the whole "inconvenient truth". Essentially warming has flat-lined since 2001.
Australia who elected a president similar to Obama wanting to combat global warming has sidelined their "going green".
One of their reps came to the USA and quizzed the Obama team looking for assurances about combating global warming...he got no answers and went back home and voted "no".
Spain which has aggressively "gone green" and is one of the world leaders in producing windmills and such for energy presently has 18% unemployment. For every job going green it created, they lost two jobs.
This bill makes no sense.

Ok, whatever. I'm just thinking that if there is a chance that it's true (which most scientist believe it is), we should do something about it instead of doing nothing. It's better safe than sorry. I care about my great great grandchildren even though I'll never meet them until we are in heaven together. If there is anything I can do to help make their world better, I'll do it. If it all ends up being a bust, oh well, at least we cared enough to try. Sitting around and waiting for something bad to happen doesn't seem like the best solution. Sometimes when you allow things like this to go on for so long it can't be reversed past a certain point. What if we keep on living the way we do now and find even more proof that we already do now and it's too late? Sucks, won't it?

Lucas McCain wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/?test=latestnews

Did you just post link to a huge republican media outlet Fox News to prove something?

They can call it anything they want to make themselves feel better.....it is a TAX! ( or a Joe Biden 4 letter word ) .
Obama's no tax on ones making less than 250,000 was a flat out lie, no getting around it. Just as Al Gore's global warming rants were/are crap, the only dangerous gasses coming out of that is from Washngton D.C... You can esily tell when they are lying...........their lips will move.


Hopefully, starting in 2010 a strong message can be sent by "kicking the bums out" and start taking America back.

^ Which outlet would you prefer... Most of the majors are reporting the same story..

Mongo wrote:

I"m willing to give Obama time, but don't think for one second that I won't call him out on things that are wrong for the country in my view. He works for us, it's in our best interest to let him know he's blowing it. The same went for Bush and every president before him.

I agree 100%. I have to say though that with Obama making what as already a terrible national debt/financial situations four times worse and still climbing in just six months I am not sure how much time is left.

Lucas McCain wrote:

^ Which outlet would you prefer... Most of the majors are reporting the same story..

This guy ran to Fox News because he was upset that his comments were left out of the report. The original report is from Fox News (go figure). I guess it doesn't matter that people are saying that this guy wasn't qualified to make any assumptions on the matter. Just like that big petition from "scientist" all over the world saying that there was no global warming that had signatures from cartoon characters on it. Fox will do anything to keep republicans in denial.

Carlin's qualifications...

Carlin has an undergraduate degree in physics from CalTech and a PhD in economics from MIT. His Web site lists papers about the environment and public policy dating back to 1964, spanning topics from pollution control to environmentally-responsible energy pricing.

Quote :

The peculiar story of a “suppressed” report at the Environmental Protection Agency continues to grow, despite the fact that the agency appears to have done nothing worse than holding its employees to professional standards.

The charge spreading through the news media is that the EPA quashed an internal report because it didn’t fit with the agency’s official position that climate change endangers public health. Al Carlin and John Davidson of the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics wrote the report, disputing the scientific consensus that human activities are driving global climate change and calling on the EPA to halt its plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

“We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming,” says their report [PDF].

The story was first advanced by the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, which opposes addressing climate change and has run a scientifically laughable hooray-for-CO2 campaign in the past. Last week CEI released internal emails between Carlin and his boss that it claimed proved political meddling inside the EPA.

“It [the report] was an inconvenient study,” Sam Kazman, CEI general counsel, told me in an interview last Wednesday. “The administration had already decided on a certain course of action, and this would not help.”

But the emails reveal little more than a rather tedious employee-management dispute. Carlin’s boss, Al McGartland, tells Carlin that his report won’t be included in the EPA’s official findings and asks him to get back to work on other issues. EPA Press Secretary Adora Andy noted that Carlin’s education and work expertise are largely in economics, not climatology. That’s why his comments on climate science were not included.

“Certain opinions were expressed by an individual [Carlin] who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue,” she said.

“Nevertheless, several of the opinions and ideas proposed by this individual were submitted to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. Additionally, his manager allowed his general views on the subject of climate change to be heard and considered inside and outside the EPA and presented at conferences and at an agency seminar. The individual was also granted a request to join a committee that organizes an ongoing climate seminar series, open to both agency and outside experts, where he has been able to invite speakers with a full range of views on climate science. The claims that his opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false.”

The next day the CEI released a draft of the actual report—an odd move because it contradicts the think tank’s version of the story. For one, the document shows that the two economists were not working in their native field. And as for the report’s scientific merits, consider this evaluation from NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, an actual climatologist. He writes on RealClimate.org:

Their main points are nicely summarised thus: a) the science is so rapidly evolving that IPCC (2007) and CCSP (2009) reports are already out of date, b) the globe is cooling!, c) the consensus on hurricane/global warming connections has moved from uncertain to ambiguous, d) Greenland is not losing mass, no sirree…, e) the recession will save us!, f) water vapour feedback is negative!, and g) Scafetta and West’s statistical fit of temperature to an obsolete solar forcing curve means that all other detection and attribution work is wrong. From this “evidence”, they then claim that all variations in climate are internal variability, except for the warming trend which is caused by the sun, oh and by the way the globe is cooling…

… what solid peer reviewed science do they cite for support? A heavily-criticised blog posting showing that there are bi-decadal periods in climate data and that this proves it was the sun wot done it. The work of an award-winning astrologer (one Theodor Landscheidt, who also thought that the rise of Hitler and Stalin were due to cosmic cycles), a classic Courtillot paper we’ve discussed before, the aforementioned FoS web page, another web page run by Doug Hoyt, a paper by Garth Paltridge reporting on artifacts in the NCEP reanalysis of water vapour that are in contradiction to every other reanalysis, direct observations and satellite data, a complete reprint of another un-peer reviewed paper by William Gray, a nonsense paper by Miskolczi etc. etc. I’m not quite sure how this is supposed to compete with the four rounds of international scientific and governmental review of the IPCC or the rounds of review of the CCSP reports ...

… Finally, they end up with the oddest claim in the submission: That because human welfare has increased over the twentieth century at a time when CO2 was increasing, this somehow implies that no amount of CO2 increases can ever cause a danger to human society. This is just boneheadly stupid.

So in summary, what we have is a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at. Seriously, if that’s the best they can do, the EPA’s ruling is on pretty safe ground.

Here’s a reprint of Grist’s original story, followed by a short update from last week:

Wouldn’t it be terrible if the Obama administration turned out to be manipulating science to fit its own ideology? Especially after Obama declared, to much fanfare, that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over”?

Yeah, that would make a helluva story: “Look, the new guy is just like the old guy!”

Well yeah, but it hasn’t happened yet, at least not in the way the Competitive Enterprise Institute claims in a release it sent this morning under the headline “BREAKING: EPA Suppresses Internal Global Warming Study.”

The free-market think tank, which has a history of intellectually hi-larious denialism, says the “Environment (sic) Protection Agency” silenced an internal dissenter in the course of its endangerment finding, a process that concluded in April that greenhouse-gases threaten public health and can be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

According to CEI, the dissenter wanted to include “a significant internal critique of the agency’s global warming position” but was stifled because the report didn’t fit the political conclusion the EPA had already reached. The group published four EPA emails as evidence of political maneuvering within the agency.

And what do the emails reveal? That there’s nothing to this story. An EPA economist wanted to give scientific opinion, which wasn’t accepted—most likely because it’s outside his area of expertise and training.

The dissenter, Alan Carlin, works as a research analyst in Washington at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE), which conducts a variety of economic analysis, including cost-benefit studies, risk assessment, and economic impact modeling. In short, it does number crunching, not scientific research.

Carlin’s personal website, Carlin Economics, reports that he received a B.S. in physics and a Ph.D. in economics and joined the EPA in 1971. It also includes links to his publications, the most recent of which support solar radiation management—a form of geoengineering—and oppose reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Link