House Democrats Win Procedural Vote on Climate Bill
Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants. It would distribute pollution allowances that could be bought and sold, depending on whether a facility exceeds the cap or makes greater pollution cuts than are required.
There was widespread agreement that under this cap-and-trade system, the cost of energy would almost certainly increase. But Democrats argued that much of the impact on taxpayers would be offset by other provisions in the bill. Low-income consumers would qualify for credits and rebates to cushion the impact on their energy bills.
Two reports issued this week, one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency, seemed to support that argument.
The CBO analysis estimated that the bill would cost an average household $175 a year; the EPA put it at between $80 and $110 a year.
Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher cost to the economy and to individuals.
Reader Comments
House Democrats Believe Al Gore and Barrack Obama
House Democrats must have great scientific backgrounds to go along with the Al Gore and Barrack Obama phantasy about global warming. All these ding-a-lings will bankrupt our country, if someone like the Supreme Court doesn't step in and tell them what fiscal responsibility means. We won't have a Constitution if our country goes down the chute. The Supreme Court should step in and protect our Constitution by preventing the ding-a-lings in our government from destroying our Constitutional way of life.
At the rate things are going, I don't think the United States can survive as an entity with Obama as the leader. Obama makes Richard Nixon look good and that's going some.
Job Security?
Besides obviously Al Gore and Nancy Pellosi, I wonder how many other people in Washington stand to profit by "Cap & Trade". Personally I think the current climate is in no real danger. However due to Overpopulation there is a real possibility that we could very well run out of most natural resources, (But that's a few generations down the road) and Cap & Trade will do absolutely nothing to preserve natural resources. It may create a new source or alternative but unless if we do something to curb the population on this planet we will continually run into the same problem of depleting our inventory over and over again. With that being said how can any Intelligent person with a shred of integrity vote for this. When the only things known for sure about this bill is more people will lose jobs, (Obama or Nancy telling me that they know for sure more jobs will be created than destroyed is a lot like our unemployment numbers would not go above 8.5% unless the stimulus was passed) and the other thing is a least right now our power bill will go up (Residentially and commercially) which in turn will drive the cost of nearly everything we buy in this country up (It might be less in the long run when you factor in tax credits and what not, but this country does not need any more reasons right now to prevent the economy from recovering. I mean their sole occupation is to dictate the will of and protect the people of a geographical community. The only logical conclusion I can come up with is that our government does not care about us one bit, for all their sanctimoneous rhetoric about the big bad greedy corperations, they are actually worse than they are at big business doesn't try to disguise that they are there to make a profit.
Where is the proof?
The annual proof is in all the world except North America's northern areas. The fact is that it exists globally. Validated here in the U.S. by SW and southern state temps as part of the globe. The cause, be it a climate cycle, man-made, or a combination of these is of no value.
The actual issues they aren't talking about that much, rather, they're addressing issues to the tree-huggers and so forth in guise. Some examples of the actual issues are future anticipated energy usage based on current estimations, population growth and its corresponding energy requirements. oil dependency and its sources, reduced global availability of oil in the future and substantial price hikes, financing alternate "clean" energy sources to offset these, long-term drop in prices of equipment making alternate energy sources. Except for coal and nuke plants, I don't see any alternatives at this time. The politicians primarily lean left nowadays, and have to contend with "green" constituents. So, as a result, things go through Congress as you see them regarding energy and climate. Its an expensive way to deal with the problems they are acutally dealing with. I don't really like it, but that's the way it is, for now.
advertisement
