CAP AND TRADE
The Cap and Trade tax: These measures would set a limit, or cap, on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use. The effect of such a cap would be to impose rationing of coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy. Each covered utility, Oil Company, and manufacturing facility would be given allowances based on past emissions or some other formula. Those companies that emit less carbon dioxide than permitted by their allowances could sell the excess to those that do not; this is the trade part of cap and trade. Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring greater cuts in emissions.
Each proposal differs from the others on specifics: the stringency of the cap, the number and type of companies covered, the ground rules for allocating and trading allowances, and other details. S. 2191 is, in several respects, more stringent than other cap and trade bills. Its requirement that emissions decline to 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020--even in the face of a growing population and rising energy demand--sets a very difficult target.
Measures like S. 2191 that target carbon emissions aggressively will be costlier than those that give the economy more time to adjust to the energy constraints. For example, over the long term, energy companies may find ways to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions underground, rather than emit them into the air, or switch to lower-emitting alternative energy sources as they are developed. But most experts see these advances as taking decades--much longer than the initial targets in S. 2191 allow. In fact, these targets may actually complicate the development of longer-term innovations, as they will divert resources to near-term fixes.
Carbon dioxide is the unavoidable byproduct of fossil fuel combustion, which currently provides 85 percent of America's energy. Thus, it will be very costly to move away from this preferred energy source, and especially doing so as expeditiously as S. 2191 requires. A study by Charles River Associates puts the cost (in terms of reduced household spending per year) of S. 2191 at $800 to $1,300 per household by 2015, rising to $1,500 to $2,500 by 2050.[2] Electricity prices could jump by 36 to 65 percent by 2015 and 80 to 125 percent by 2050.[3] No analysis has been done on the impact of S. 2191 on gasoline prices, but an Environmental Protection Agency study of a less stringent cap and trade bill estimates impacts of 26 cents per gallon by 2030 and 68 cents by 2050.[4]
Even these cost projections may underestimate the true costs, because they assume no unpleasant surprises. But the world has already witnessed many unpleasant surprises with Europe's ongoing efforts to impose a cap and trade program under the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, European efforts have racked up significant costs while failing to reduce emissions.
Nearly every European country participating has higher emissions today than when the treaty was first signed in 1997. Further, despite ongoing criticism of the United States from Kyoto parties for failing to ratify the treaty, emissions in many of these nations are actually rising faster than in the United States.
The European experience also shows the problem of cap and trade fraud. None other than Enron's Ken Lay was a strong supporter of carbon cap and trade when the idea was first floated in the 1990s, saying that it could "do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative." These carbon allowances that will be bought and sold have a value estimated at $50 billion to $300 billion annually, and the trade in them would be a huge new business.[7] Enron may be gone, but others ready to take advantage of cap and trade--often at public expense--are not.
So why would Obama push so hard for Cap and Trade, knowing what it does to the people and the economy..... The answer is: GE, yes General Electric. GE stands to gain billions of dollars from this program through the stimulus bill and the purposed budget. GE is receiving the contracts for wind turbines, and a new power grid. GE's stock is down 37% in the last 5 years, they need their green technologies division to pull them out. This is why Obama and the democrats are pushing the "Climate Change" issue. Before it was "Global Warming", but the most recent trends show the earth has cooled .07 degrees Celsius over the last decade, and during the 1980's it was "Acid Rain" , that didn't work out either, and before that it was " The Global Ice Age" in the 1970's. These claims are only made for the purpose of running industry, the liberal/statist feel as though they have to control all aspects of our lives.
This is why Obama said on Nov. 2nd 2008, he would bankrupt the coal industry and make it impossible to build a new coal plant, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle. Coal is our greatest natural resource, and employs 174,000 people. With coal out of the picture, we could not supply our countries electrical or steel needs. We have not built a nuclear power plant in almost 30 yrs. so where will our power come from....Unreliable Solar and Wind technology...from GE. Why GE, you ask, well GE is the parent company of such liberal media networks as MSNBC and NBC. If you have watched these liberal media outlets, you understand, they have made Obama out to be the second coming of Christ... They no longer have a journalistic point of view, but complete bias, this was proven during the Obama 1st 100 days press conference. During the conference, President Obama received only prepared questions from the media, such as "What has humbled you, in your first 100 days" and "what has been the most exciting part of the job", it looked like a Hanna Montana interview on Nickelodeon. These organizations gave almost no media coverage of the other candidates, during the 2008 election, and if they did cover the others, it was not a positive report.
These organizations didn’t cover the Jeremiah Wright, the Bill Ayers, or the ACORN stories. These same organizations only point out the negative aspects of the conservative base, never letting up on George W. Bush, throughout his 8 yrs. in office. They bashed him at every turn, yet they didn't report, that not ONE, (YES I SAID NOT ONE), congressman, senator, or the President himself read the $787,000,000,000 stimulus bill before signing it....the largest spending bill ever in the history of the world. So to be so bias, for the purpose of direct compensation from the U.S. government as repayment for services rendered-ie. the promotion of the Liberals and Barak Hussein Obama, they should be required to post a disclaimer prior to reporting the "news". Their news hour should be considered an advertisement for false information provided.... Maybe they should hire Billy Mays, as an anchor!