Boxer Violated Senate Rules to Pass Cap and Trade from Commitee

Friday, November 6, 2009

Senate rules require at least two Republicans to be present before a committee can pass a bill to the floor. Senator Barbara Boxer threw the rule book out the window and voted the Cap and Trade bill out of the committee without a single Republican present.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) discusses the outrageous move. He calls Cap and Trade a 'Monstrous Tax.'

5 comments:

That's exactly what it is. They've been trying to sell us on it for years. Global Warming... no... it's called "climate change" now because we're not seeing a direct correlation between rising C02 levels and world temperature, well, it's caused by C02... no... methane and coal now since C02 actually leaves our atmosphere far faster than they originally thought, so they changed the conclusions and admit the science was wrong... well. It's just doesn't make any sense anymore, but we need to do something about it RIGHT NOW based on the original conclusions... get it? Now let's put a massive tax on everything that will kill jobs and increase costs to the public and businesses- electrical bills and the price of gas will go up, but it will be worth it based on the original assumptions that have now been disproven by REAL science, and Gore admits it... but we're just too stupid to notice, right??

Dr B said...

Looks like Pelosi also went back on her promise to publish the bill publicly 72 hours in advance.

No surprise there!!! Just another promise for "transparency" that you can't count on.

Peter said...

I'm with Inhofe...

Cap and Trade is wrong
- whether one is for or against emission control
http://ceolas.net/#cc1x

The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply.

Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global temperature - and given the expense of emission reduction - the key is
to engage in activites which
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.

Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020 typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles) alone,
since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.

This can be done with emission tax (for cars, allowing free choice) and emission limits for CO2 (for electricity generation), without any emission trading.


The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:

1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that's in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.

2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.

3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.

4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local.


In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track,
and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures,
and can involve other industries if necessary.


Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either.

Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions,
with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand, together with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what
people can or can’t buy and use.

Peter said...

More about why Cap and Trade is wrong

Emission Policy Alternatives:
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need - or not - to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax -- Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea -- Offsets -- Tree Planting -- Manufacture Shift -- Fair Trade -- Surreal Market -- Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs -- Allowance Trading -- Companies: Business Stability + Cost -- In Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions
.

Post a Comment

 
 
 

Save the Constitution

Declaration of Liberty

In memory of our God, our Nation, our Religions, our Freedom, our Peace, our Families and our Fallen Dead;

WE THE PEOPLE declare that We will Never Yield to those who would place us in bondage. We will live for the Constitution and we will die for the Constitution, for we know that it was inspired of God for all of his Children.


http://digitalnetworkarmy.com
 
Copyright © 2009-2010 Good Sense, All Rights Reserved.

Articles, quotes, comments, and images are the exclusive property of their respective authors, who own all rights to their use. Articles do not necessarily represent the views of Good Sense or its contributers. All copyrighted materials appearing on this site and not derived by contributing authors are protected by and used according to “Fair Use” as described in sections 107 through 118 of the U.S. Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code).