.jpg)
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)
The U.S. House of Representative narrowly passed the Waxman Markey Energy Bill, known as the cap and trade bill because it would set up a cap and trade system, around 3 o’clock Saturday morning. I examine the costs and benefits of such a system here.
The original vote was scheduled for Friday afternoon but the debate raged well past midnight. In the end over 40 Democrats voted with Republicans against the bill; however, such is the Democrat majority in the house that when 8 Republicans were convinced to break ranks and vote with the Democrats, it was enough to pass the bill 212 to 219. Republican leader John Boehner cried foul when new amendments were added at the last minute, and pointed out many representatives had not even had time to read the entire bill. Boehner was urging the vote be put off until the full text could be digested and debated. His objections were pushed aside and the bill will go the Senate where the vote is expected to be even closer.
Given the controversy and uncertainty surrounding this bill, I would like to point out, whatever the real or imagined environmental benefits, this bill will make energy more expensive, drive up costs and be an energy tax. The middle class and the poor will suffer most as the economy slows and contracts even more. Companies will pass higher operating costs on to the consumer and unemployment can be expected to rise. President Obama himself has conceded this bill will raise energy costs across the board, and slow economic development.
Without overstating the point, energy is the life’s blood of our entire economy and modern way of life. The industrial age began when fossil fuels, in the form of coal, oil and natural gas, replaced wood, animal draft, whale oil and the sun as sources of energy and productivity. (Is it not easier to bake large quantities of bread in an industrial bakery then on hot rocks in the sun?) Even supporters of alternative energy sources agree with this basic point. Our economy, development and job growth depend on a ready supply of cheap energy. Currently, only fossil fuels can meet this demand reliably. It is obvious an alternative such as hydrogen, must eventually replace fossil fuels. There is the rub! No source of energy can yet compete with fossil fuels in reliability, price and efficiency and support large population centers and industrial regions. Solar is inefficient, wind is intermittent and hydrogen, electric vehicles and ethanol all require more energy from fossil fuels, as an input to there production, then is derived from them at the point of utilization.
I think it also worth pointing out; many countries around the world are now dismantling their cap and trade schemes. Clearly, they tried this path and decided they did not like where it lead. There is also growing doubt related to anthropogenic global warming, and humanity's capacity to have more then a negligible effect on global climate. The costs are high, the effects uncertain and I urge the Senate to consider this bill very carefully before voting.
You might also enjoy these:
Comments
Obama's cap and trade will cost many of us our businesses. It will cost many of us our jobs. It will cost all of us our freedoms and our future.
What do we get as a "bonus"? We get to "enjoy" the corruption, poverty, enslavement, destruction and despair of Marxism/communism/socialism (or whatever you want to call the government's taking over, destroying the economy and enslaving us).
Obama is working much faster than Hugo Chavez at destroying the economy and imposing Marxism. No wonder the Russians are gloating:
From Pravda: “…the American descent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people…”
We are NOT hapless sheeple! We must do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves and our children from the Marxist dictatorship that’s being set up in Washington.
"growing doubt related to anthropogenic global warming"
Really? There is very little debate about this. Have a look for yourself at the almost exact correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures. Look up global warming at Wikipedia. Coincidence right?
And although the bill will force power companies to pass the retrofit costs to consumers, the "author" failed to mention that this will also create a greater demand for technology designed to reduce emissions. New kinds of companies will form and grow to meet this demand for new technology.
This is a tax bill and will have little effect at actually changing emissions.
The biggest issue, is that companies will just push the prices on consumers. Things are going to cost more and we'll be taxed more on top of it.
WJ, Global temperatures and greenhouse gas levels rise and fall in response to natural events. Events which release far more CO2 then humans do. The link I provided right above the line you sight talks about how countries which adopted cap and trade schemes were rolling back or phasing out because it was costly and useless. Every day more and more scientists become more vocal in their critique of anthropogenic (man caused)global warming.
The bill may create demand for products and services from GE, especially the section about buying new appliances before one can sell their house, but I am not sure if this worth exponentially increasing energy costs.
Clear and correct. Less energy consumption means less economic growth. Even for the energy producers higher prices mean that less people can afford it i.e. less profit, higher costs per unit and so on. It's basic economy, nothing more.
However, sometimes the only way to expose a bill as bad is actually to let it pass.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!