HotAir – NYT – WSJ – IBD – Hope-n-Change EPA


UPDATE – BILL PASSED 219-212 (7:17 PM)8 Repubs Traitors Voted YES!

gorepray

300 PAGE DUMP AT 3AM – Welcome to Hope-n-Change!

Now they are going on recess for the 4th of July celebrations !!! Shame, Shame, Shame

LoBiondo – Castle – Bono Mack – Kirk – Lance – McHugh – Reichert – Smith (NJ)

HALL OF SHAME!


hotair_getyourfill_large

Ed Morrissey at HotAir writes:

In pre-Norman England, King Canute once had his bearers carry him to the sea, where he ordered the ocean to recede.  Often this story is told to indict Canute for having delusions of grandeur, but historians usually agree that Canute intended to teach a lesson to his court, whose profuse flattery had annoyed the king to distraction.

Why does Canute come to mind today?  For some reason, I thought of it when I read the AP’s lead to their coverage of the cap-and-trade bill coming to the House floor for a vote…Before today, the bill ran a little over 1,000 pages…Early this morning, Waxman dropped a 300-page amendment into it.

http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr2998/waxman1_hr2998_111.pdf

Also See here:  AOL Hot Seat Poll: Do you support cap-and-trade?


nytlogo153x23

How Much Cap-and-Trade Bill Would Cost Families

By Catherine Rampell – New York Times

The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan research group, last week estimated the costs of such a bill in 2020. (Officials chose that year because they figured the economy would have had time to adjust to the regulations by then).

Based on the version of the bill that the budget office scored — which distributes carbon allowances to businesses, households and governments — the net annual economy-wide cost in 2020 would be $22 billion.

The costs of new energy infrastructure and purchases of carbon allowances would not, for the most part, be borne by American businesses themselves. Rather, the office says, companies would probably pass on most of those costs to customers — in particular, American households — in the form of higher prices.

The cost per household would amount to an estimated $175 in 2020. (These numbers include the cost of compliance with a cap-and-trade program, but not the benefits that might come from reducing carbon emissions — so it’s hard to compare these numbers to the cost households would bear in the total absence of efforts to combat climate change.)

While the average cost per household is $175, or about 0.2 percent of a family’s after-tax income, not every household would be equally in the hole.


wsj_images

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

… Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

ED-AJ130_3whopa_NS_20090308171239Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. 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…

… The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”

… 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.

cbocapandtrade

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.

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can’t repeal that reality.

See Also:

Who Pays for Cap and Trade? WSJ


ibd_logo_4478_1_

The Cap-and-Trade Bill Is an Economic Disaster

By Investor’s Business Daily

The House of Representatives is preparing to vote on an anti-stimulus package that in the name of saving the earth will destroy the American economy. Smoot-Hawley will seem like a speed bump.

Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey.

The 1,000-plus-page American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) is being rushed to a vote by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi before anyone can seriously object to this economic suicide pact.

It’s what Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, might call a “man-caused disaster,” a phrase she coined to replace the politically incorrect “terrorist attack.” But no terrorist could ever dream of inflicting as much damage as this bill.

Its centerpiece is a “cap and trade” provision that has been rightfully derided as “cap and tax.” It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide.

It is the largest tax increase in American history — a tax on all Americans — even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase.

It’s a political bill that could come to a vote now that a deal was struck with farm-state legislators concerned about the taxation of even bovine flatulence.

As part of the agreement reached Tuesday night and announced by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Beverly Hills, agricultural oversight for cap-and-trade was transferred from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Farmers hope the USDA will be less intrusive. The EPA has been tasked by a Supreme Court ruling to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from your nostrils to your lawn mower. This even covers the emissions of barnyard animals, including the methane from cows.

The American Farm Bureau warns that cap and trade would cost the average farmer $175 on every dairy cow and $80 for beef cattle. So farm-state politics trumped climate change.

We all know about farmers paid not to grow food. But now, American taxpayers apparently will be paying companies not to chop down trees. The Washington Times reports that as part of the legislation, the House will also be voting Friday on a plan to pay domestic and international companies around the world not to cut down trees.

Such offsets “would be a transfer of wealth overseas,” said William Kovacs, vice president for environmental affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So if a tree falls in a Brazilian forest, does a U.S. taxpayer make a sound?

As we’ve said before, capping emissions is capping economic growth. An analysis of Waxman-Markey by the Heritage Foundation projects that by 2035 it would reduce aggregate gross domestic product by $7.4 trillion. In an average year, 844,000 jobs would be destroyed, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by almost 2 million (see charts below).

Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation. Inflation-adjusted gasoline prices would rise 74%, residential natural gas prices by 55% and the average family’s annual energy bill by $1,500.

Hit hardest by all this would be the “95% of working families” Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation. They are protected, that is, unless they use energy. Then they’ll be hit by this draconian energy tax.

And what would we get for all this pain? According to an analysis by Chip Knappenberger, administrator of the World Climate Report, the reduction of U.S. CO2 emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 — the goal of the Waxman-Markey bill — would reduce global temperature in 2050 by a mere 0.05 degree Celsius.

President Obama has called on the U.S. to “lead by example” on global warming. During the campaign, he said: “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times . . . and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

Soon we may not be able to. Other countries can just sit back and watch us destroy ourselves. Where will you be when the lights go out?


logo_epaseal

THE “Change-n-Hope” GOVERNMENT POSITION

Cap and trade is an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.

Examples of successful cap and trade programs include the nationwide Acid Rain Program and the regional NOx Budget Trading Program in the Northeast. Additionally, EPA issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) on March 10, 2005, to build on the success of these programs and achieve significant additional emission reductions.

epafiles_ban_topepa

Economic Analyses

EPA conducts climate economic analyses to estimate the economic and environmental effects of potential domestic climate change mitigation programs and strategies. Given the complexity of economic and environmental interactions underlying the climate change issue, no one model can address all of the questions surrounding a climate change economic analysis. To provide an accurate representation of potential climate change mitigation programs and strategies, EPA employs an array of modeling tools and data. For more information about the modeling tools used by EPA, please visit the Climate Economic Modeling page. Below is a list of analyses completed by EPA; click on the links for details and to download files:

June 2009 – The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Analysis of H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

EPA’s H.R. 2454 analysis:

April 2009 – The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Preliminary Analysis of the Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft in the 111th Congress, The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

EPA’s Waxman-Markey Discussion Draft preliminary analysis:

March 2008 – The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Analysis of Senate Bill S.2191 in the 110th Congress, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (S.2191) is designed to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases through the development of a market-driven system of tradable allowances.To download the letter requesting the analysis from Senators Lieberman and Warner: Cover Letter (PDF) (1 page, 364 KB).EPA’s S.2191 analysis:

  • Download the cover letter to Senator Lieberman from EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Robert J. Meyers: Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 224 KB)
  • Download the cover letter to Senator Warner from EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Robert J. Meyers: Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 228 KB)
  • Download EPA’s S.2191 analysis: EPA Analysis of the Climate Security Act of 2008 (PDF) (193 pp., 4 MB).
    *Note: This version was updated on 5/5/2008 to reflect minor changes to slides 25, 60, 74, 79, 82, 155, 156, 165, 166, 167. Additionally slides 189 – 192 were added to cover power sector natural gas issues and global CO2 concentrations.
  • To download the appendix: Appendix (PDF) (xx pp, xxx MB, About PDF)
  • Download the data annex: Data Annex (WinZip format)

January 2008 – Part 2 of The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Analysis of Senate Bill S.1766 in the 110th Congress, the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007

The Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 (S.1766) is designed to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases from the production and use of energy. Part 2 of the request from Senators Bingaman and Specter was to analyze the economic impacts of S.1766. Part 2 of EPA’s S.1766 analysis:

  • Download the cover letter to Senator Bingaman from EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Robert J. Meyers: Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 295 KB)
  • Download the cover letter to Senator Specter from EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Robert J. Meyers: Cover Letter (PDF) (4 pp, 294 KB)
  • Download the Part 2 of EPA’s S.1766 analysis: EPA Analysis of the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 (PDF) (116 pp, 1.94 MB). Note: EPA’s analysis of S. 1766 was updated on 1/25/08 to reflect a change to slide #52, which incorrectly included coal production levels from EPA’s reference case scenario rather than the S. 1766 scenario.
  • Download the Appendix: Appendix (PDF) (126 pp, 1.94 MB)
  • Download the data annex: Data Annex (WinZip format)

September 2007 – Part 1 of The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Analysis of Senate Bill S.1766 in the 110th Congress, the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007

The Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 (S.1766) is designed to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases from the production and use of energy. The request to analyze S.1766 from Senators Bingaman and Specter has two main parts: 1) analyze historic and projected global greenhouse gas concentrations, and 2) analyze the economic impacts of S.1766.To download the letter requesting the analysis from Senators Bingaman and Specter: Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 536K)Part 1 of EPA’s S.1766 analysis:

July 2007 – United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Analysis of Senate Bill S.280 in the 110th Congress, The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007
The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 (S.280) is designed to reduce U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases through the development of a market-driven system of tradable allowances. To download the letter requesting the analysis from Senators Lieberman and McCain: Cover Letter (PDF) (1 pg, 371K)

  • Download the cover letter to Senator Lieberman from EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Robert J. Meyers: Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 1.8MB)
  • Download the cover letter to Senator McCain from EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Robert J. Meyers: Cover Letter (PDF) (3 pp, 1.8MB)
  • Download the full version of the report: EPA Analysis of The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007 (PDF) (100 pp, 827K)
  • Download the data annex: Data Annex (WinZip format containing zipped Excel spreadsheet files, 9.6MB, Microsoft Excel Viewer. If you are having trouble opening the “Data Annex” zip file, please right mouse click over that link to save it to your computer before opening.)

October 2005 – United States Environmental Protection Agency’s Analysis of Senate Bill S.843 in the 108th Congress, Clean Air Planning Act

The Clean Air Planning Act is a bill to amend the Clean Air Act to establish a national uniform multiple air pollutant regulatory program for the electric generating sector.  It establishes national pollutant tonnage limitations for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide.


See Also:

EPA plays hide and seek; suppressed report revealed, By Michelle Malkin

Emissions trading – Wiki

Most States Lose Under Cap-N-Trade: CBO Interactive Map


END

Advertisements