Two EPA lawyers criticized the cap-and-trade energy bill passed by the House as a scam, noting in the Washington Post that it will be manipulated to profit politically-connected corporations and reward certain kinds of pollution, while not cutting greenhouse gas emissions. A similar scheme enacted in Europe in the name of fighting global warming enriched polluters, and did not reduce emissions, which rose faster afterwards in Europe than in the U.S..
The Washington Examiner explains how the bill will lead to deforestation, and thus increase greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.
The bill, which is loaded with pork for special interests, is backed by Obama, who once admitted that under his cap-and-trade scheme, electricity and utility bills would "skyrocket" and coal-fed power plants would go "bankrupt." Treasury Department analysts estimated it could increase taxes on the average American household by $1761 per year.
The bill also contains environmentally-harmful provisions, such as massive ethanol subsidies, which will result in “damage to water supplies, soil health and air quality.” Ethanol subsidies have resulted in forests being destroyed in the Third World, and caused famines that have killed countless people in the world's poorest countries.
Comments
Hey, that was an "editorial" written by two "fringe" lawyers, and is not the opinion of the EPA or the Post. I think you misrepresented it.
I never claimed, or even hinted, that it was the official viewpoint of the Post (or the EPA).
If it had been the official viewpoint of the Post -- unlike most of the columns that appear on the Post's editorial page -- I would have noted that.
It was written by two respectable lawyers, who appear to have a viewpoint shared by some environmental lawyers and some environmentalist groups.
While I cited to the article because of its useful insights, I don't claim to agree with everything they said (I am sure they would endorse some regulations that I would not, and that they are likely more liberal than I am).
Cap-and-trade is a taxpayer ripoff, the ripoff of the century, worse than the days of the robber barons. The fig leaf of global warming can't hide its corruption. It will leave the environment even worse than it is now.
I read the Post article and didn't see cap and trade referred to as a scam. You mention two lawyers as experts against thousands who support cap and trade. We still don't know the details of the c and p system for the Senate bill which will be different than the House's.
Cap and trade would be bad, but EPA carbon restrictions under the Clean Air Act -- the alternative -- could be worse.
A straightforward carbon tax, used to reduce the income tax, would be a better way of mitigating global warming.
so, we're taking our science from lawyers now?
what next? prescriptions from librarians?
This article is a scam. It presents only one side of a complex issue. Hans, if you want your editorials to be even remotely believable, make sure you also quote from those who believe that C&T is viable. We don't care about your opinion - better have the facts from both sides and let us make up our own minds.
Frankly, a simple increase in the gas tax, plus an end to arbitrary to restrictions on nuclear power, would go far more to cut greenhouse gas emissions than this turd sandwich of a bill (the truth about the rotten cap-and-trade bill).
Hey Walrus...
If you watched "An Inconvienient Truth" and believed it, guess what??
You were TAKING YOUR SCIENCE FROM A ~POLITICIAN~!
Doc
Doc_Navy says:
"Hey Walrus...
If you watched "An Inconvienient Truth" and believed it, guess what??
You were TAKING YOUR SCIENCE FROM A ~POLITICIAN~!
Doc "
and if I didn't watch "An Inconvienient something or other" because I have better things to do, then what?
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!