CBO estimate of cap and trade costs: $175 per year, per person

[Winehole23]

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf

[DarkReign]

I read about the EU's cap and trade program (Scientific American). The "cap" isnt the problem so much as is the "trade". IIRC, each country is alloted so many "tickets" to be distributed/sold to private companies.

These companies can then use or sell/trade them. The demand for these "tickets" is above and beyond any precious metal you could imagine. They sell for millions/billions. Obviously, when that amount of money is exchanging through private hands, corruption, government buyoffs and political philandering are widespread throughout.

Its an all around horrible idea.

[Wild Cobra]

It's a sad day in America when our government officials are so stupid as to want to implement such programs.

[101A]

These companies can then use or sell/trade them. The demand for these "tickets" is above and beyond any precious metal you could imagine. They sell for millions/billions. Obviously, when that amount of money is exchanging through private hands, corruption, government buyoffs and political philandering are widespread throughout.




I think I'm beginning to understand what this whole global warming thing is all about.

[Wild Cobra]

I think I'm beginning to understand what this whole global warming thing is all about.
It always was. VP Gore is invested in the companies that will rack in the bux over reducing carbon emissions.

[coyotes_geek]

Not sure that giving companies another reason to outsource American jobs is really where we want to be going. We're already China's bitch as it is thanks to all the money we're borrowing from them, do we really want to give them all our manufacturing jobs too?

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting read:

Cap-And-Trade: Al Gore's Cash Cow (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=475461)

[FaithInOne]

It's a sad day in America when our government officials are so stupid as to want to implement such programs.

It's a sad fucking day in america when the americants cannot see this for what it is. Just another tool for government to gain control over business and citizens.

[101A]

Interesting read:

Cap-And-Trade: Al Gore's Cash Cow (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=475461)

From the article:


As Stephen Milloy, author of "Green Hell," points out, Goldman Sachs is lobbying for climate change legislation and is part owner of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where carbon credits from cap and trade would be traded.


In one sentence; Cap and Trade, Goldman Sachs AND Chicago.

Just a coincidence.

[Wild Cobra]

In one sentence; Cap and Trade, Goldman Sachs AND Chicago.

Just a coincidence.
Of course not. We have the new gangsters of Chicago running this nation.

[101A]

Of course not. We have the new gangsters of Chicago running this nation.

I think your sarcasm meter might be malfunctioning.

[Wild Cobra]

I think your sarcasm meter might be malfunctioning.
Who's being sarcastic?

I honestly believe they are purposely redirecting money to the benefit of themselves and friends. I do not believe they are stupid enough to do their actions by accident.

[101A]

Who's being sarcastic?



Me. We're not debating here; we're agreeing.

[DarrinS]

I'm skeptical of this estimate, but I'll read the entire report when I have time.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm skeptical of this estimate, but I'll read the entire report when I have time.
I'm skeptical too. Seem to me it will cost a whole lot more than that.

Besides, we all know CBO numbers are politically skewed for the results they want...

Anyone have the OBM (OMB?) numbers?

[coyotes_geek]

I've skimmed it, and it just looks like a big shell game to me. That $175 value is a "net" amount based on the premise that the government is going to take in all this money and then spend it on things which will return value to the taxpayers. In other words the $175 is the difference between how much money you're going to be out of pocket for less the "goodies" the government is going to give you. The problem I see is that the money going out seems to be far more tangible and quantifiable than the alleged benefits taxpayers will get back.

On the "money out" side of a household's ledger, the gross cost is $890. That's the estimate for how much more we'll all have to go out of pocket to cover the higher costs of goods and services that the companies buying the carbon allowances will pass along to their consumers. Pretty tangible.

The "money in" side for households is pretty fuzzy and far less tangible. Over half the money collected gets sent directly to utilities and "trade exposed" businesses, and the theory is that money given to them will filter down to consumers. There's a chunk of money that will get sent directly to households, but that will be skewed towards low income families. And there's a chunk to go towards subsidizing clean energy technology.

So it looks like the money out is direct, but the money in is a combination of "trickle down" and "redistribution of wealth". It's also based on the theory that Congress will actually take the money and do with it what they're saying they're going to do. Which is not neccissarily a given. One thing I found curious, and very troubling, is that the analysis is for what the effects will be in 2020, 8 years after the legislation is supposed to go into effect. The document says (pg 2) that is done so that the economy would have time to adjust. Nowhere in the document did I find any analysis on what's supposed to happen between 2012 and 2020.

[Winehole23]

Final bill to be released less than 24 hours before the vote. It gained over 300 pages in committee. These changes and additions have not yet been publicly disclosed (http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/23/what-the-frak-is-going-on-with-the-cap-and-trade-bill/).

[Winehole23]

Vote to be held on Friday (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aaS7dRF7Sj0U).

[SnakeBoy]

I hope they get it passed.

[Wild Cobra]

CBO may say that only $195 annual, but I heard it will make electricity cost 90% more.

Look at how much electricity is generated by coal and oil. Ask yourself how this affects energy. How about natural gas for your water heater and heating. How about gasoline costs? Diesel for Trucking?

Every means of energy that produces CO2 will be taxed! That affects everyone!

Hasn't this administration damaged this nation enough?

Why pass Full Chinese Employment Act. More and more corporations will manufacture in China where they don't have to put up with this bullshit.

[coyotes_geek]

Final bill to be released less than 24 hours before the vote. It gained over 300 pages in committee. These changes and additions have not yet been publicly disclosed (http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/06/23/what-the-frak-is-going-on-with-the-cap-and-trade-bill/).

Just a guess here, but I'm going to go ahead and say that those extra 300 pages did not make the price tag any cheaper.

Also, how refreshing to see the new democrat era of openness and transparency where major bills like cap and trade will be voted on before anyone in congress, the media or the public has time to fully digest what all is in it. Hope. Change. Yes we can.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is HR 2454 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454rh.txt.pdf).

Page 338 has little to do with Carbon emissions, are grants, and baffles me:


(aa) $24.00 per thousand gallons per year of potable water savings of 40 percent or more;

(bb) $27.00 per thousand gallons per year of potable water savings of 50 percent or more; and

(cc) $30.00 per thousand gallons per year of potable water savings of 60 percent or more.

A thousand gallons of water where I live costs $2.77. $2.07 per hundred cu. ft. and that is 748 gallons.

Ouch... Looking it up, it's set to increase to $2.44 per unit of 100 cu. ft. at the start of July. That makes a 1,000 gallons $3.26.

Page 959 starts with a "Consumer Assistance/Energy Tax Credit." I'm lost with the verbiage, but apparently this credit is up to $6000 annually. I guess this means during the year, as we pay almost double for electricity, gas, etc. that we get some of our money back, if we qualify. Unless they give us IOU's like California did to their people... Number on income are $20,000 for individuals and $25,000 for joint returns for the phase out of the credit. Looks like it doesn't help the real tax payers any. Figures I have seen by the CBO the average tax payer paying $190 more annually and the poor getting something like $40 annually back. Redistribution of wealth again, but that is only direct energy costs, and unreliable CBO numbers. Energy usage is everywhere. This could destroy what is left of the metals industries in America. So many other industries use high quantities of energy too.

Again, this should be called the Chinese Full Employment Act.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh... Forgot.

The bill so far reads that electricity increases will be a minimum of :

$0.00043 Per kW hr. for Coal
$0.00022 Per kW hr. for Natural Gas
$0.00032 Per kW hr. for Oil

It doesn't list a maximum! Now a fraction of a cent isn't much, but I don't trust them. I didn't find gasoline increases. However, apparently new cars will be taxed by their annual carbon usage and the bill has credits into the thousands for trading in certain qualified vehicles and buying qualified ones. Must be a huge gas tax. I would assume based on the carbon emissions in gas, and the electrical carbon tax, that it will be a minimum of $0.03 per gallon. That's a conservative low estimate. Since they want to restrict it, I'll bet it will be at least $.10 per gallon.

Any new fossil fuel electrical generation initially permitted after 2019 is required to have a 65% or more decrease in CO2 emissions. This will make new power very expensive, unless we really have some energy breakthrough. Even nuclear powers is more expensive than coal, oil, etc. with all the regulations behind it.

[Wild Cobra]

Winehole's link ha a link to the 1201 page version:

HR 2454 (http://www.eenews.net/public/25/11457/features/documents/2009/06/23/document_daily_03.pdf)

[Wild Cobra]

They address Black Carbon in rather lose ways leaving wide open several controls.

Say good-bye to your fireplace!

[Wild Cobra]

Just looking at the table of contents, the 300 page larger bill has dome deleted sections, and even more added:

Removed sections:

Sec. 128. Temporary Vehicle Trade-in Program.

Sec. 191. Study of ocean renewable energy and transmission planning and siting.

Sec. 431. Energy tax credit.

Sec. 432. Energy refund program for low-income consumers.

Added sections:

No idea how the intact sections have been changed.

Sec. 133. Support of Indian renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.

Sec. 172. Advanced energy research.

Sec. 174. Centers for Energy and Environmental Knowledge and Outreach.

Sec. 188. Indirect support.

Sec. 191. Conforming amendments.

Sec. 195. Increased hydroelectric generation at existing Federal facilities.

Sec. 339. National strategy for domestic biological carbon sequestration.

Sec. 431. Energy refund program.

Sec. 432. Modification of earned income credit amount for individuals with no qualifying children.

Sec. 433. Protection of Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

[TeyshaBlue]

from an opinion piece in today's wsj:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

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.

Their 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.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

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."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

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. 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.




That's some pretty snakey math.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

According to the WSJ, the analysis doesn't factor in the impact on our GDP at all. Here's the gory details (gee, wonder why the Congressional fucks left this out...):


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."

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

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.

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.

How do you like that? Republicans actually being conservative on those amounts for gas prices, electricity rates, and unemployment rates, but the Dems want no part.

That should tell you the reality to expect in all this:

* Gas will be over $5/gallon
* Electricity rates will be up well over 10%
* Unemployment rates will coast by the 15% rate no problem.

Every jackass who votes for this bill should be out at the next available time (2010, 2012, etc.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

[Wild Cobra]

According to the WSJ, the analysis doesn't factor in the impact on our GDP at all. Here's the gory details (gee, wonder why the Congressional fucks left this out...):



How do you like that? Republicans actually being conservative on those amounts for gas prices, electricity rates, and unemployment rates, but the Dems want no part.

That should tell you the reality to expect in all this:

* Gas will be over $5/gallon
* Electricity rates will be up well over 10%
* Unemployment rates will coast by the 15% rate no problem.

Every jackass who votes for this bill should be out at the next available time (2010, 2012, etc.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

Absolutely.

You see, it doesn't matter what the cost is projected to be. CBO numbers are static numbers that no not reflect real changes that are in known market forces. When you take Cap and Trade, you make a supply and demand market. As energy users need more energy, they will be buying from others who have credits. These credits will, through supply and demand, increase in price. As the cap gets cranked down, the price will get higher and higher for credits.

Please notice. The legislation I linked used the term "minimum price" when referring to this new Energy Tax! That is why the estimates made by responsible people say this will effectively be a 90% tax on energy.

[ElNono]

I don't know what conservatives are bitching about. If this legislation is as unpopular and as bad as they claim, then you probably will only have to deal with it for the next 3 1/2 years (maybe even less). Plus it would open a window for the Republican party to reposition itself with valid criticism.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't know what conservatives are bitching about. If this legislation is as unpopular and as bad as they claim, then you probably will only have to deal with it for the next 3 1/2 years (maybe even less). Plus it would open a window for the Republican party to reposition itself with valid criticism.
You didn't read the legislation.

Most of this stuff doesn't go into effect for a few years. This will more likely affect the next president or two. Not the sitting one.

Example I already posted:


Any new fossil fuel electrical generation initially permitted after 2019 is required to have a 65% or more decrease in CO2 emissions.

[ElNono]

You didn't read the legislation.

Most of this stuff doesn't go into effect for a few years. This will more likely affect the next president or two. Not the sitting one.

Example I already posted:

Doesn't matter. If this thing is so bad, then it can only help the Republicans. All they need is control of congress again to overrule this new law (if it passes).
What are you complaining about again?

[Wild Cobra]

Doesn't matter. If this thing is so bad, then it can only help the Republicans. All they need is control of congress again to overrule this new law (if it passes).
What are you complaining about again?
I can come up with so many things to complain about. Primarily, the public is left in the dark to the true details of such bills. I see it highly probable that this will pass, and then we will be stuck with the costs before there's any time to fix it. Same thing with the health care ideas.

[ElNono]

I can come up with so many things to complain about. Primarily, the public is left in the dark to the true details of such bills. I see it highly probable that this will pass, and then we will be stuck with the costs before there's any time to fix it. Same thing with the health care ideas.

The public simply doesn't know shit about proposed laws in general. That I agree is a problem. I just don't think this one is going to be much different.

[Wild Cobra]

The public simply doesn't know shit about proposed laws in general. That I agree is a problem. I just don't think this one is going to be much different.
Yep, not any different in theory. Just so much more expensive.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I don't know what conservatives are bitching about. If this legislation is as unpopular and as bad as they claim, then you probably will only have to deal with it for the next 3 1/2 years (maybe even less). Plus it would open a window for the Republican party to reposition itself with valid criticism.

The Dems are being smart about Tax and Spend. The majority of the changes won't go into effect until 2012. Long enough for them (and Obama) to make it through the 2011 election cycle without anyone seeing their electric bills go up 50%+ and unemployment hit 15-20% nationwide.

[ElNono]

The Dems are being smart about Tax and Spend. The majority of the changes won't go into effect until 2012. Long enough for them (and Obama) to make it through the 2011 election cycle without anyone seeing their electric bills go up 50%+ and unemployment hit 15-20% nationwide.

You can bet that if it passes it will be a campaign topic, considering the economy is topic numero uno until the recession is officially over.

[Wild Cobra]

You can bet that if it passes it will be a campaign topic, considering the economy is topic numero uno until the recession is officially over.
Last I heard, they are 12 votes short and only 17 undecided. I've been listening to Hannity while in the car today. I almost turned him off because even he was talking about Jackson. I'm already in Jackson overload.

Anyway, apparently at the last minute, another 300+ pages was added to the 1200+ pages. Now more democrats are wavering on it. I haven't checked C-Span, and if I actually turn on the TV I might have already missed the vote. I am faithful that it will not pass today. Hope I'm not wrong.

[Winehole23]

Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/cap-and-trade-state-by-state.html), using CBO assumptions, shows Louisiana, Wyoming and Alaska as cost outliers. The latter two presumably for heavy reliance on private planes for transportation.

[Winehole23]

Kucinich votes against (http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/26/dennis-kucinich-votes-against-climate-change-bill/) Cap and Trade. Too backloaded he says, and too generous to coal interests.

[jman3000]

ha... Kucinich is one liberal mfer.. but he does stand for his principles.

[JoeChalupa]

ha... Kucinich is one liberal mfer.. but he does stand for his principles.

I concur.

[jack sommerset]

The Dems bankrupt California and now they will do the same for the USA.:toast

[Winehole23]

In one sentence; Cap and Trade, Goldman Sachs AND Chicago. Matt Taibbi's article in the new Rolling Stone, "The Great American Bubble Machine (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16781569/16750352GoldmanSachs)" directly makes the connection.

[Marcus Bryant]

Matt Taibbi's article in the new Rolling Stone, "The Great American Bubble Machine (http://www.scribd.com/doc/16781569/16750352GoldmanSachs)" directly makes the connection.

Regulatory schemes enrich and protect the regulated instead of the public. More news at 11.

[Winehole23]

I didn't post it for your benefit, MB. It might not be old hat for everybody.

[Winehole23]

It's not easy IMO to boil this thing down in a pop journalism format. This Taibbi piece and his last are as good as I've seen in the genre.

[Marcus Bryant]

Did not mean to be critical of you, but rather the 'system' or 'revolving door' or whatever it is known by these days.

And yes, it is interesting how this latest crisis didn't become a national emergency until Goldman was threatened. Then you had the Treasury Secretary scrambling to increase the federal budget by 33% to save it. And we are to believe that this is a nation of laws.

[Marcus Bryant]

Is "public-private partnership" still in vogue?

[Winehole23]

Is "public-private partnership" still in vogue?No. Supposedly because the banks were scared of it.

Have you got a guess why?

[Marcus Bryant]

The end of business as usual?

[Winehole23]

The PPIP's were designed to fail, i.e., to transfer failure from the banks to the public and unwary investors.

Either:

Even with the FDIC no-contract (i.e., free leverage) guarantees, the hedge funds refused to touch the financial dreck at the center of it all, realizing they'd never recoup at a price acceptable to the banks.

Or:

When the banks figured out the hedge funds would never give them their price, they refused to participate.

[boutons_deux]

Taibbi strikes (Goldman) again.


NYSE ends transparency to protect Goldman Sachs

"The New York Stock Exchange quietly announced last week that it would end its practice of requiring companies to report all their program trading — a move that helps shield large investment banks, particularly Goldman Sachs, from public scrutiny.

The new rule means the public will no longer be able to tell if large investment banks are manipulating the stock market for their own gain, "

"Taibbi argues that the move is designed to protect investment banks from bloggers who are exposing the companies’ stock market manipulations. Goldman Sachs is singled out because the investment bank’s share of principal NYSE trading has gone from 27 percent at the end of 2008 to fully 50 percent of trades in recent months."

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/04/taibbi-nyse-ends-transparency-to-protect-goldman-sachs/

[Winehole23]

Wow. That's deserving of its own thread IMO.

[Wild Cobra]

Taibbi strikes (Goldman) again.


NYSE ends transparency to protect Goldman Sachs

"The New York Stock Exchange quietly announced last week that it would end its practice of requiring companies to report all their program trading — a move that helps shield large investment banks, particularly Goldman Sachs, from public scrutiny.

The new rule means the public will no longer be able to tell if large investment banks are manipulating the stock market for their own gain, "

"Taibbi argues that the move is designed to protect investment banks from bloggers who are exposing the companies’ stock market manipulations. Goldman Sachs is singled out because the investment bank’s share of principal NYSE trading has gone from 27 percent at the end of 2008 to fully 50 percent of trades in recent months."

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/04/taibbi-nyse-ends-transparency-to-protect-goldman-sachs/



Why don't you verify anything before posting what is misinformation? If I red the memo correctly, they are stopping a requirement that has the same information reported twice.

DECOMMISSIONING OF THE DPTR (http://apps.nyse.com/commdata/PubInfoMemos.nsf/AllPublishedInfoMemosNyseCom/85256FCB005E19E8852575DF006D4F66/$FILE/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Document%20in%2009-31.pdf)


In the 2007 rule filing, the Exchange proposed to eliminate DPTR. The 2007 filing noted that there was some duplication between the DPTR data and the audit trail information that member organizations provide to the Exchange via account-type indicators at the time that they submit program trades to the Exchange.

The source article is from a leftist writer for "The Rolling Stone."

wiki: Matt Taibbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Taibbi)

[boutons_deux]

"If I red the memo correctly"

you didn't.

They're dropping the Daily PTR while retaining the weekly J and K audit trails.

A week is a long time on the often-very-volatile NYSE. Less frequent reporting means less transparency, behind which market gamers like Goldman can have their merry ways.

[Extra Stout]

After perusing details of the cap-and-trade bill, it looks like a giant sop to Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Agriculture, with a hearty dollop of Social Engineering mixed in.

The vaunted carbon reductions are smoke-and-mirrors. The bill creates a whole bunch of offsets, then hands them to businesses that donate generously to Congress so they can sell them. Free money! At your expense! By the time the bill is supposed to "reduce carbon emissions by 85%," in 2050, it will not actually have reduced the amount of carbon atoms that get emitted to the atmosphere one smidgen, but simply will have massaged the "offsets" so on some accounting sheet of paper, which will impress RandomGuy to no end, a number untethered from concrete reality will get smaller.

This has absolutely nothing to do with curtailing global warming.

Nothing.

It is all a scam to steal from individuals and give to corporate interests. The only difference between this and what the Republicans did for six years is that instead of putting a "free markets" veneer on their brazen larceny, they're putting on a "green" veneer instead.

I feel like rejecting the social contract with the government.

[RandomGuy]

Hmmm.

Link to the particulars of the bill anyone?

[101A]

After perusing details of the cap-and-trade bill, it looks like a giant sop to Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Agriculture, with a hearty dollop of Social Engineering mixed in.

The vaunted carbon reductions are smoke-and-mirrors. The bill creates a whole bunch of offsets, then hands them to businesses that donate generously to Congress so they can sell them. Free money! At your expense! By the time the bill is supposed to "reduce carbon emissions by 85%," in 2050, it will not actually have reduced the amount of carbon atoms that get emitted to the atmosphere one smidgen, but simply will have massaged the "offsets" so on some accounting sheet of paper, which will impress RandomGuy to no end, a number untethered from concrete reality will get smaller.

This has absolutely nothing to do with curtailing global warming.

Nothing.

It is all a scam to steal from individuals and give to corporate interests. The only difference between this and what the Republicans did for six years is that instead of putting a "free markets" veneer on their brazen larceny, they're putting on a "green" veneer instead.

I feel like rejecting the social contract with the government.

I knew it had to be something similar; thanks for the macro review.

Anybody gonna turn on Obama on this?

Bueller?

[DarrinS]

After perusing details of the cap-and-trade bill, it looks like a giant sop to Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Agriculture, with a hearty dollop of Social Engineering mixed in.

The vaunted carbon reductions are smoke-and-mirrors. The bill creates a whole bunch of offsets, then hands them to businesses that donate generously to Congress so they can sell them. Free money! At your expense! By the time the bill is supposed to "reduce carbon emissions by 85%," in 2050, it will not actually have reduced the amount of carbon atoms that get emitted to the atmosphere one smidgen, but simply will have massaged the "offsets" so on some accounting sheet of paper, which will impress RandomGuy to no end, a number untethered from concrete reality will get smaller.

This has absolutely nothing to do with curtailing global warming.

Nothing.

It is all a scam to steal from individuals and give to corporate interests. The only difference between this and what the Republicans did for six years is that instead of putting a "free markets" veneer on their brazen larceny, they're putting on a "green" veneer instead.

I feel like rejecting the social contract with the government.



Yep. But at least guilt-ridden, hand-wringing greenies will be able to sleep at night.

Even if it really DID reduce carbon emmisions, I doubt it would have any significant effect on the climate.

[coyotes_geek]

Hmmm.

Link to the particulars of the bill anyone?

Whole text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111jhKFJS::

Here's the section that shows how the actual carbon allowances will increase until 2016, and the actual reductions of carbon emissions don't start taking place until Obama is out of office. I guess cutting carbon emissions isn't Obama's problem after all.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:4:./temp/~c111jhKFJS:e878822:

[DarrinS]

Whole text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111jhKFJS::

Here's the section that shows how the actual carbon allowances will increase until 2016, and the actual reductions of carbon emissions don't start taking place until Obama is out of office. I guess cutting carbon emissions isn't Obama's problem after all.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:4:./temp/~c111jhKFJS:e878822:


Those links aren't working for me.

[coyotes_geek]

Interesting. I'll try again.

The text of the bill is huge and all the other sites are gumming up my browser. It's HR 2454. The section showing the year by year carbon allowances is Section 721.

[coyotes_geek]

Though not the text of the bill itself, here's a document showing where all the allowances go.

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/ce-insight/EMISSIONS-BILL-HR2454.pdf

And where you see the word "auction" you can replace that with "to be sold by the government to the highest bidder".

[Extra Stout]

No!!!!! It can't be!!!!

[RandomGuy]

[makes fun of Random Guy's support of Obama]

You wound me.

If the bill is a watered down piece of crap, I will readily admit it. I trust your assessment actually, but would like to read it for myself to be able to inform myself personally about it.

Personally, I doubt that anything meaningful can get past the moneyed special interests that have bought and paid for the Congress these days.

[RandomGuy]

Whole text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111jhKFJS::

Here's the section that shows how the actual carbon allowances will increase until 2016, and the actual reductions of carbon emissions don't start taking place until Obama is out of office. I guess cutting carbon emissions isn't Obama's problem after all.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:4:./temp/~c111jhKFJS:e878822:

The website says it only retains searches for a limited time, so the links don't work.

What is the exact name of the cap and trade bill?

[coyotes_geek]

It's something like American Clean Energy Security Bill. I know it's HR 2454.

[RandomGuy]

NM I found the thing.

H.R.2454
American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

Looks like a back-breaker. It has waaaaay more than the cap and trade stuff in it.

Here is the summary index:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009'.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. International participation.
TITLE I--CLEAN ENERGY
Subtitle A--Combined Efficiency and Renewable Electricity Standard
Sec. 101. Combined efficiency and renewable electricity standard.
Sec. 610. Combined efficiency and renewable electricity standard.
Sec. 102. Clarifying State authority to adopt renewable energy incentives.
Sec. 103. Federal renewable energy purchases.

Subtitle B--Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Sec. 111. National strategy.
Sec. 112. Regulations for geologic sequestration sites.
Sec. 813. Geologic sequestration sites.
Sec. 113. Studies and reports.
Sec. 114. Carbon capture and sequestration demonstration and early deployment program.
Sec. 115. Commercial deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
Sec. 786. Commercial deployment of carbon capture and sequestration technologies.
Sec. 116. Performance standards for coal-fueled power plants.
Sec. 812. Performance standards for new coal-fired power plants.

Subtitle C--Clean Transportation
Sec. 121. Electric vehicle infrastructure.
Sec. 122. Large-scale vehicle electrification program.
Sec. 123. Plug-in electric drive vehicle manufacturing.
Sec. 124. Investment in clean vehicles.
Sec. 125. Advanced technology vehicle manufacturing incentive loans.
Sec. 126. Definition of renewable biomass.
Sec. 127. Open fuel standard.
Sec. 32920. Open fuel standard for transportation.
Sec. 128. Diesel emissions reduction.
Sec. 129. Loan guarantees for projects to construct renewable fuel pipelines.
Sec. 130. Fleet vehicles.
Sec. 130A. Report on natural gas vehicle emissions reductions.

Subtitle D--State Energy and Environment Development Accounts
Sec. 131. Establishment of SEED Accounts.
Sec. 132. Support of State renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.
Sec. 133. Support of Indian renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.

Subtitle E--Smart Grid Advancement
Sec. 141. Definitions.
Sec. 142. Assessment of Smart Grid cost effectiveness in products.
Sec. 143. Inclusions of Smart Grid capability on appliance ENERGY GUIDE labels.
Sec. 144. Smart Grid peak demand reduction goals.
Sec. 145. Reauthorization of energy efficiency public information program to include Smart Grid information.
Sec. 146. Inclusion of Smart Grid features in appliance rebate program.

Subtitle F--Transmission Planning
Sec. 151. Transmission planning and siting.
Sec. 216A Transmission planning.
Sec. 216B. Siting and construction in the Western Interconnection.
Sec. 152. Net metering for Federal agencies.
Sec. 153. Support for qualified advanced electric transmission manufacturing plants, qualified high efficiency transmission property, and qualified advanced electric transmission property.

Subtitle G--Technical Corrections to Energy Laws
Sec. 161. Technical corrections to Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
Sec. 162. Technical corrections to Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Subtitle H--Energy and Efficiency Centers and Research
Sec. 171. Energy Innovation Hubs.
Sec. 172. Advanced energy research.
Sec. 173. Building Assessment Centers.
Sec. 174. Centers for Energy and Environmental Knowledge and Outreach.
Sec. 175. High efficiency gas turbine research, development, and demonstration.

Subtitle I--Nuclear and Advanced Technologies
Sec. 181. Revisions to loan guarantee program authority.
Sec. 182. Purpose.
Sec. 183. Definitions.
Sec. 184. Clean energy investment fund.
Sec. 185. Energy technology deployment goals.
Sec. 186. Clean energy deployment administration.
Sec. 187. Direct support.
Sec. 188. Indirect support.
Sec. 189. Federal credit authority.
Sec. 190. General provisions.
Sec. 191. Conforming amendments.

Subtitle J--Miscellaneous
Sec. 195. Increased hydroelectric generation at existing Federal facilities.
Sec. 196. Clean technology business competition grant program.
Sec. 197. National Bioenergy Partnership.
Sec. 198. Office of Consumer Advocacy.
Sec. 319. Office of Consumer Advocacy.
Sec. 199. Development corporation for renewable power borrowing authority.
Sec. 199A. Study.

TITLE II--ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Subtitle A--Building Energy Efficiency Programs
Sec. 201. Greater energy efficiency in building codes.
Sec. 304. Greater energy efficiency in building codes.
Sec. 202. Building retrofit program.
Sec. 203. Energy efficient manufactured homes.
Sec. 204. Building energy performance labeling program.
Sec. 205. Tree planting programs.
Sec. 206. Energy efficiency for data center buildings.
Sec. 207. Community building code administration grants.
Sec. 208. Solar energy systems building permit requirements for receipt of community development block grant funds.
Sec. 209. Prohibition of restrictions on residential installation of solar energy system.

Subtitle B--Lighting and Appliance Energy Efficiency Programs

Sec. 211. Lighting efficiency standards.
Sec. 212. Other appliance efficiency standards.
Sec. 213. Appliance efficiency determinations and procedures.
Sec. 334. Jurisdiction and venue.
Sec. 214. Best-in-Class Appliances Deployment Program.
Sec. 215. WaterSense.
Sec. 216. Federal procurement of water efficient products.
Sec. 217. Early adopter water efficient product incentive programs.
Sec. 218. Certified stoves program.
Sec. 219. Energy Star standards.

Subtitle C--Transportation Efficiency
Sec. 221. Emissions standards.
Part B--Mobile Sources
Sec. 821. Greenhouse gas emission standards for mobile sources.
Sec. 222. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions through transportation efficiency.

Part D--Transportation Emissions
Sec. 841. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions through transportation efficiency.
Sec. 223. SmartWay transportation efficiency program.
Sec. 822. SmartWay transportation efficiency program.
Sec. 224. State vehicle fleets.

Subtitle D--Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs
Sec. 241. Industrial plant energy efficiency standards.
Sec. 242. Electric and thermal waste energy recovery award program.
Sec. 243. Clarifying election of waste heat recovery financial incentives.
Sec. 244. Motor market assessment and commercial awareness program.
Sec. 245. Motor efficiency rebate program.
Sec. 347. Motor efficiency rebate program.
Sec. 246. Clean energy manufacturing revolving loan fund program.
Sec. 27. Clean energy manufacturing revolving loan fund program.
Sec. 247. Clean energy and efficiency manufacturing partnerships.
Sec. 248. Technical amendments.

Subtitle E--Improvements in Energy Savings Performance Contracting
Sec. 251. Energy savings performance contracts.

Subtitle F--Public Institutions
Sec. 261. Public institutions.
Sec. 262. Community energy efficiency flexibility.
Sec. 263. Small community joint participation.
Sec. 264. Low income community energy efficiency program.
Sec. 265. Consumer behavior research.

Subtitle G--Miscellaneous
Sec. 271. Energy efficient information and communications technologies.
Sec. 543. Energy efficient information and communications technologies.
Sec. 272. National energy efficiency goals.
Sec. 273. Affiliated island energy independence team.
Sec. 274. Product carbon disclosure program.
Sec. 275. Industrial energy efficiency education and training initiative.
Sec. 276. Sense of Congress.

Subtitle H--Green Resources for Energy Efficient Neighborhoods
Sec. 281. Short title.
Sec. 282. Definitions.
Sec. 283. Implementation of energy efficiency participation incentives for HUD programs.
Sec. 284. Basic HUD energy efficiency standards and standards for additional credit.
Sec. 285. Energy efficiency and conservation demonstration program for multifamily housing projects assisted with project-based rental assistance.
Sec. 286. Additional credit for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac housing goals for energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages.
Sec. 287. Duty to serve underserved markets for energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages.
Sec. 288. Consideration of energy efficiency under FHA mortgage insurance programs and Native American and Native Hawaiian loan guarantee programs.
Sec. 543. Consideration of energy efficiency.
Sec. 289. Energy-efficient mortgages and location-efficient mortgages education and outreach campaign.
Sec. 290. Collection of information on energy-efficient and location-efficient mortgages through Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.
Sec. 291. Ensuring availability of homeowners insurance for homes not connected to electricity grid.
Sec. 292. Mortgage incentives for energy-efficient multifamily housing.
Sec. 293. Energy-efficient certifications for manufactured housing with mortgages.
Sec. 294. Assisted housing energy loan pilot program.
Sec. 295. Making it green.
Sec. 296. Residential energy efficiency block grant program.
Sec. 123. Residential energy efficiency block grant program.
Sec. 297. Including sustainable development and transportation strategies in comprehensive housing affordability strategies.
Sec. 298. Grant program to increase sustainable low-income community development capacity.
Sec. 299. HOPE VI green developments requirement.
Sec. 299A. Consideration of energy efficiency improvements in appraisals.
Sec. 299B. Housing Assistance Council.
Sec. 299C. Rural housing and economic development assistance.
Sec. 299D. Loans to States and Indian tribes to carry out renewable energy sources activities.
Sec. 299E. Green banking centers.
Sec. 299F. GAO reports on availability of affordable mortgages.
Sec. 299G. Public housing energy cost report.
Sec. 299H. Secondary market for residential renewable energy lease instruments.
Sec. 299I. Green guarantees.

TITLE III--REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION
Sec. 301. Short title.

Subtitle A--Reducing Global Warming Pollution
Sec. 311. Reducing global warming pollution.

TITLE VII--GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION REDUCTION PROGRAM

Part A--Global Warming Pollution Reduction Goals and Targets
Sec. 701. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 702. Economy-wide reduction goals.
Sec. 703. Reduction targets for specified sources.
Sec. 704. Supplemental pollution reductions.
Sec. 705. Review and program recommendations.
Sec. 706. National Academy review.
Sec. 707. Presidential response and recommendations.

Part B--Designation and Registration of Greenhouse Gases
Sec. 711. Designation of greenhouse gases.
Sec. 712. Carbon dioxide equivalent value of greenhouse gases.
Sec. 713. Greenhouse gas registry.

Part C--Program Rules
Sec. 721. Emission allowances.
Sec. 722. Prohibition of excess emissions.
Sec. 723. Penalty for noncompliance.
Sec. 724. Trading.
Sec. 725. Banking and borrowing.
Sec. 726. Strategic reserve.
Sec. 727. Permits.
Sec. 728. International emission allowances.

Part D--Offsets
Sec. 731. Offsets Integrity Advisory Board.
Sec. 732. Establishment of offsets program.
Sec. 733. Eligible project types.
Sec. 734. Requirements for offset projects.
Sec. 735. Approval of offset projects.
Sec. 736. Verification of offset projects.
Sec. 737. Issuance of offset credits.
Sec. 738. Audits.
Sec. 739. Program review and revision.
Sec. 740. Early offset supply.
Sec. 741. Environmental considerations.
Sec. 742. Trading.
Sec. 743. International offset credits.

Part E--Supplemental Emissions Reductions From Reduced Deforestation
Sec. 751. Definitions.
Sec. 752. Findings.
Sec. 753. Supplemental emissions reductions through reduced deforestation.
Sec. 754. Requirements for international deforestation reduction program.
Sec. 755. Reports and reviews.
Sec. 756. Legal effect of part.
Sec. 312. Definitions.
Sec. 700. Definitions.

Subtitle B--Disposition of Allowances
Sec. 321. Disposition of allowances for global warming pollution reduction program.

Part H--Disposition of Allowances
Sec. 781. Allocation of allowances for supplemental reductions.
Sec. 782. Allocation of emission allowances.
Sec. 783. Electricity consumers.
Sec. 784. Natural gas consumers.
Sec. 785. Home heating oil, propane, and kerosene consumers.
Sec. 787. Allocations to refineries.
Sec. 788. Supplemental agriculture and renewable energy incentives programs.
Sec. 789. Climate change consumer refunds.
Sec. 790. Exchange for State-issued allowances.
Sec. 791. Auction procedures.
Sec. 792. Auctioning allowances for other entities.
Sec. 793. Establishment of funds.
Sec. 794. Oversight of allocations.
Sec. 795. Exchange for early action offset credits.

Subtitle C--Additional Greenhouse Gas Standards
Sec. 331. Greenhouse gas standards.

TITLE VIII--ADDITIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS STANDARDS
Sec. 801. Definitions.
Part A--Stationary Source Standards
Sec. 811. Standards of performance.

Part C--Exemptions From Other Programs
Sec. 831. Criteria pollutants.
Sec. 832. International air pollution.
Sec. 833. Hazardous air pollutants.
Sec. 834. New source review.
Sec. 835. Title V permits.
Sec. 332. HFC Regulation.
Sec. 619. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
Sec. 333. Black carbon.

Part E--Black Carbon
Sec. 851. Black carbon.
Sec. 334. States.
Sec. 335. State programs.

Part F--Miscellaneous
Sec. 861. State programs.
Sec. 862. Grants for support of air pollution control programs.
Sec. 336. Enforcement.
Sec. 337. Conforming amendments.
Sec. 338. Davis-Bacon compliance.
Sec. 339. National strategy for domestic biological carbon sequestration.
Sec. 340. Reducing acid rain and mercury pollution.

Subtitle D--Carbon Market Assurance
Sec. 341. Carbon market assurance.

Part IV--Carbon Market Assurance
Sec. 401. Oversight and assurance of carbon markets.
Sec. 402. Applicability of Part III provisions.
Sec. 1041. Fraud and false statements in connection with regulated allowances.
Sec. 342. Carbon derivative markets.

Subtitle E--Additional Market Assurance
Sec. 351. Regulation of certain transactions in derivatives involving energy commodities.
Sec. 352. No effect on authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Sec. 353. Inspector General of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Sec. 354. Settlement and clearing through registered derivatives clearing organizations.
Sec. 355. Limitation on eligibility to purchase a credit default swap.
Sec. 356. Transaction fees.
Sec. 357. No effect on antitrust law or authority of the Federal Trade Commission.
Sec. 358. Effect of derivatives regulatory reform legislation.
Sec. 359. Cease-and-desist authority.
Sec. 360. Presidential review of regulations.

TITLE IV--TRANSITIONING TO A CLEAN ENERGY ECONOMY

Subtitle A--Ensuring Real Reductions in Industrial Emissions

Sec. 401. Ensuring real reductions in industrial emissions.

Part F--Ensuring Real Reductions in Industrial Emissions
Sec. 761. Purposes.
Sec. 762. Definitions.
subpart 1--emission allowance rebate program
Sec. 763. Eligible industrial sectors.
Sec. 764. Distribution of emission allowance rebates.
subpart 2--promoting international reductions in industrial emissions
Sec. 765. International negotiations.
Sec. 766. United States negotiating objectives with respect to multilateral environmental negotiations.
Sec. 767. Presidential reports and determinations.
Sec. 768. International reserve allowance program.
Sec. 769. Iron and steel sector.

Subtitle B--Green Jobs and Worker Transition

Part 1--Green Jobs
Sec. 421. Clean energy curriculum development grants.
Sec. 422. Increased funding for energy worker training program.
Sec. 423. Development of Information and Resources clearinghouse for vocational education and job training in renewable energy sectors.
Sec. 424. Monitoring program effectiveness.
Sec. 424A. Green construction careers demonstration project.

Part 2--Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance
Sec. 425. Petitions, eligibility requirements, and determinations.
Sec. 426. Program benefits.
Sec. 427. General provisions.

Subtitle C--Consumer Assistance
Sec. 431. Energy refund program.

TITLE XXII--ENERGY REFUND PROGRAM
Sec. 2201. Energy refund program.
Sec. 432. Modification of earned income credit amount for individuals with no qualifying children.
Sec. 433. Protection of Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Subtitle D--Exporting Clean Technology
Sec. 441. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 442. Definitions.
Sec. 443. Governance.
Sec. 444. Determination of eligible countries.
Sec. 445. Qualifying activities.
Sec. 446. Assistance.

Subtitle E--Adapting to Climate Change
Part 1--Domestic Adaptation

subpart a--national climate change adaptation program

Sec. 451. Global change research and data management.
Sec. 452. National Climate Service.
Sec. 453. State programs to build resilience to climate change impacts.

subpart b--public health and climate change

Sec. 461. Sense of Congress on public health and climate change.
Sec. 462. Relationship to other laws.
Sec. 463. National strategic action plan.
Sec. 464. Advisory board.
Sec. 465. Reports.
Sec. 466. Definitions.
Sec. 467. Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Fund.

subpart c--natural resource adaptation

Sec. 471. Purposes.
Sec. 472. Natural resources climate change adaptation policy.
Sec. 473. Definitions.
Sec. 474. Council on Environmental Quality.
Sec. 475. Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Panel.
Sec. 476. Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.
Sec. 477. Natural resources adaptation science and information.
Sec. 478. Federal natural resource agency adaptation plans.
Sec. 479. State natural resources adaptation plans.
Sec. 480. Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Fund.
Sec. 481. National Wildlife Habitat and Corridors Information Program.
Sec. 482. Additional provisions regarding Indian tribes.

Part 2--International Climate Change Adaptation Program
Sec. 491. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 492. Definitions.
Sec. 493. International Climate Change Adaptation Program.
Sec. 494. Distribution of allowances.
Sec. 495. Bilateral assistance.

TITLE V--AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RELATED OFFSETS

Subtitle A--Offset Credit Program From Domestic Agricultural and Forestry Sources

Sec. 501. Definitions.
Sec. 502. Establishment of offset credit program from domestic agricultural and forestry sources.
Sec. 503. List of eligible domestic agricultural and forestry offset practice types.
Sec. 504. Requirements for domestic agricultural and forestry practices.
Sec. 505. Project plan submission and approval.
Sec. 506. Verification of offset practices.
Sec. 507. Certification of offset credits.
Sec. 508. Ownership and transfer of offset credits.
Sec. 509. Program review and revision.
Sec. 510. Environmental considerations.
Sec. 511. Audits.

Subtitle B--USDA Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee
Sec. 531. Establishment of USDA Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee.
Subtitle C--Miscellaneous
Sec. 551. International indirect land use changes.
Sec. 552. Biomass-based diesel.
Sec. 553. Modification of definition of renewable biomass.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act:

(1) ADMINISTRATOR- The term `Administrator' means the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

(2) STATE- The term `State' has the meaning given that term in section 302 of the Clean Air Act.


--------------------------

Take a bit of time to read through, more than my shortened lunch hour will bear.

At first glance it seems to have a lot of stuff on encouraging efficiency.

Anyhoo, onwards and upwards.

[Extra Stout]

Though not the text of the bill itself, here's a document showing where all the allowances go.

http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/ce-insight/EMISSIONS-BILL-HR2454.pdf

And where you see the word "auction" you can replace that "to be sold by the government to the highest bidder".
Now go find all the offsets! See, with offsets, you don't actually have to reduce emissions. You can substitute doing something that earns you an "offset" instead!

For example, rather than cutting emissions, go buy some cheap land, plant some trees on it, and call it "forest." Offset!

Or, you can pay a fee to a landfill that is already recovering methane to keep doing what it is already doing. Offset!

Or, you can pay big agricultural companies twice -- once to switch their fields to no-till farming methods that they want to switch to anyway because of their effects on soil nitrogen and erosion, but that don't actually sequester carbon (as research since the 1980's has shown), and then again for heavy use of their own herbicides that make no-till possible in the first place. Offset!

What we're going to do is the same thing Europe did -- define every pork project that comes down the line from now until kingdom come as an "offset" and just lie about how much carbon it will sequester or reduce. Then, thirty years down the road when carbon emissions are the same or higher, we'll shrug our shoulders.

Offsets have been around for a while -- "green-conscious" people buy them to "offset" their own personal carbon usage. These same folks always said that when it came down to real, appreciable carbon reduction, tough, unpopular choices in reducing consumption would have to be made.

But, see, we're not going to make those choices. Instead, we're going to set up a nice little market where the pork project du jour reduces imaginary carbon on an accounting sheet, so the people getting the pork make tons of money at the expense of everybody else.

For adherents of the environmental religion, perhaps this external show of green piety will convince the earth to relent from its wrathful warming, without their having to make real sacrifices. You know, maybe instituting a scheme of human sacrifice to reduce energy consumption could help atone for our sins. Hey, let's get tax money to build a temple. Offset!

Sure, the purchasing power of everybody will go down, but wait, there's less! The bill calls for "energy refund credits" to be disbursed in the form of checks to low-income consumers! More free money for votes! Yay!

The United States of America can go to hell.

[Extra Stout]

Big Huge Oil Refining Company can make a killing on this.

"See, we were planning to cut down this greenbelt here to make room for an expansion in the year 3000, but now we're going to make it a permanent employee park."

"Let's plant some maple seedlings."

Offset!

[coyotes_geek]

^^^ exactly what's going to happen. You'll also see Goldman Sachs and all the other wall street crooks buying up carbon permits and holding utility companies hostage.

[Wild Cobra]

Whole text here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:4:./temp/~c111jhKFJS::

Here's the section that shows how the actual carbon allowances will increase until 2016, and the actual reductions of carbon emissions don't start taking place until Obama is out of office. I guess cutting carbon emissions isn't Obama's problem after all.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:4:./temp/~c111jhKFJS:e878822:


Those links aren't working for me.
Those links are temporary links that expire. You have to be careful with Thomas searches, and find one that isn't temporary before linking it. You can tell by the web address. Notice the "/temp/" in the link...

Here is a working link to the version sent to the senate:

H. R. 2454 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h2454pcs.txt.pdf)