Fear over higher costs dominates climate debate

[DanteXavier]

http://www.examiner.com/a-1973102~Fear_over_higher_costs_dominates_climate_debate.html



WASHINGTON (Map (http://www.examiner.com/map.cfm?latlong=38.9102 -77.0179&dateline=WASHINGTON), News (http://www.examiner.com/Dateline-WASHINGTON.html)) - As Congress begins to debate climate change in earnest, the science is taking a back seat to economics: How much will it cost to slow the Earth's warming because of man-made pollution - and what's the cost of doing nothing?

With a key House committee starting four days of hearings, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Nancy_Pelosi.html), vowed to get a climate bill approved this year. Noting that Earth Day will be celebrated on Wednesday, she told reporters by the next Earth Day "we want to celebrate what we've done this year" to address climate change and clean energy.
But the challenge of getting bipartisan support immediately became apparent.
The Energy and Commerce Committee hearing had barely begun when Republicans raised their concerns about higher energy prices produced by putting an added price for burning fossil fuels.
"In its current form, this bill may do more harm to our economy than any bill that is likely to come before Congress for the rest of this year, or perhaps during my natural lifetime," declared Rep. Michael C. Burgess, R-Texas (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Michael_Burgess.html).
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich. (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-John_Dingell.html), whose state's already is reeling economically and home to energy-intensive industries, said the economic impact of the bill drafted by Democrats "cannot be overstated" unless ways are found to blunt expected increases in energy costs.
The Democratic proposal calls for broad limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, meaning energy from fossil fuels, especially coal in the production of electricity, will become more expensive. It would cut greenhouse gases by 20 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent by mid-century.
The bill also includes a string of measures aimed at reducing the use of fossil energy such as requiring utilities to produce a quarter of their electricity from renewable sources, and calling for tougher standards to promote energy efficiency.
The proposed "cap-and-trade" system would limit greenhouse gas emissions and allow industries to buy and sell emissions credits in the open market to make it easier, and less expensive, to comply with the emissions ceiling.
A key question yet to be resolved is how the government should make available pollution permits: Sell all at an auction or provide them for free to industries most greatly affected such as coal-burning power plants and energy intensive industries.
"We need to talk that through with our members," said Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif. (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Henry_Waxman.html), who said he's confident "it will be resolved in the legislative process."
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Ed_Markey.html), chairman of subcommittee crafting the bill, said some emissions permits likely will be given to energy-intensive industries threatened by imports. Keeping energy costs down, "that's our commitment, our goal," he told reporters.
President Barack Obama (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Barack_Obama.html) wants all of the permits auctioned off with billions of dollars in auction proceeds to be redistributed in order to blunt the expected rise in the costs of electricity and other energy sources as fossil-fuel generated energy becomes more expensive.
But Republicans are opposed to the Democrats' cap-and-trade approach in general and a number of Democrats from coal-producing and industrial states argue some ways must be found to limit the economic impact in their regions.
In a letter to Waxman, all 23 GOP (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-U.S._Republican_Party.html) members of the committee said Tuesday, the allowances issue is "the cornerstone" of the legislation. "We cannot know the true cost of this bill until the permit issue has been decided," said Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La. (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Steve_Scalise.html)
The four days of hearings during which the committee is to hear from about 60 witnesses - environmentalists, business groups and academics all hoping to shape the final legislation - is expected to focus largely on economic costs.
Pelosi argued that the legislation with its energy components will produce thousands of "green" jobs and help the country shift to greater energy independence through less reliance on foreign oil for transportation.
But in the current tough economic times, Republican critics of the bill believe the cost issue will resonate with the public and, in turn, with lawmakers.
"The question is can we do this in a way that boosts our economy and not hurts it, that creates jobs in America (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-United_States.html) and not sends them overseas," asked Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa. (http://www.examiner.com/Subject-Timothy_Murphy.html) He didn't have an answer.

I have to say I'm leaning towards the conservative's side on this one. I don't believe in this system, and I remain somewhat skeptical about some aspects of the climate change debate.

[RxOnco]

This will be another vote down party lines. The Republicans are finally starting to re-gain their common sense when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the Dems will try and make themselves look good to those that buy in to this nonsense called Global Warming. Even if it's at the expense of the taxpayer during this economic "crisis."

[Jurinko]

if they didn´t notice, warming period has switched to cooling one again, as regular ocean oscillations and weak sun 24th cycle took over. This piece is worth reading:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/markey_barton_letter.html

[toad]

On second thought, GOP cap-and-trade cost estimates on the money.....

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/22/on-second-thought-gop-cap-and-trade-cost-estimates-on-the-money/


"Republican opponents to Barack Obama’s cap-and-trade policy claimed that the costs passed along to the energy consumer would eventually amount to about $3100 a year, calling this a tax by other means. Proponents scoffed at the suggestion, claiming that the actual cost would be less than a tenth of that amount. They cited John Reilly, an MIT professor who claimed that the GOP lied about the study he conducted in order to concoct that number — and organizations from newspapers to Think Progress to MS-NBC and even the Wall Street Journal used his statement to call Republicans liars for the last several weeks.
They may have to eat those words. Professor Reilly has rechecked his figures, and now he says that not only were the Republicans right after all, they actually underestimated the costs to the consumer. John McCormack scores the exclusive."


See the url above for more but basically it says that after the MIT professor recalculated the numbers it would equal $3,128 per household


"At issue is what happens to all of the cap-and-trade funds that get collected by the government in the Obama plan. "

"Massive rebates might sound great to Republicans, but Democrats will never, ever agree to them. In any case, with these deficits, the money for rebates technically doesn’t exist.
Besides, the money has already been earmarked. Obama himself said he would use the money for massive government expenditures on renewables research. Other Democrats counted on the money to fund health-care reform. No one in the administration or Congress ever envisioned giving the money back to the consumers, directly or even indirectly.
Once the government gets this money from energy production, they’re going to keep it."



Well, from what I have read... personally, companies like ENRON were really into Cap and Trade. They saw there was money to be made. I think the Gov't will make money, large energy producers will still make money because costs go to consumers...and the only ones who don't make out so good are going to be schlubs like me who have to pay the electric bill every month.

But thats just my opinion.


Happy friggin' Earth Day.....hold on to your wallet

[vryhpyammoadded]

First Ferengi rule of acquisition "Once you have their money, you never give it back"

[ZeroZen]

this climate thing is BS. I always thought us humans make the environment and adapt it to us, not we adapt to the environment.

[DanteXavier]

And while all of this is going on China is talking about their brand new coal powered energy scheme.