Maybe you've heard of the "cap-and-trade" legislation being proposed in Congress. It's being promoted as a way to "improve the environment" by making companies that have undesirable emissions pay a price to buy emissions rights from those who pollute less. But in the end, "cap and trade" would mean a big new tax and higher prices on all of us Americans.
Chattanooga's Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., has warned:
"Saddling the American people with a national energy tax when many are already struggling to pay their electricity bills is the wrong approach to solving our nation's energy challenge.
"The proposed 'Cap and Tax' bill would make our nation less competitive, cause electricity rates to 'skyrocket' and could cost a lot of people their jobs.
"This is a regressive penalty that hurts those on a fixed income the most.
"We can meet the country's growing demand for energy and be responsible stewards of the environment through technology and innovation, without a sweeping tax and regulatory scheme.
"If we are going to seriously address these challenges, we need to renew our commitment to an all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes nuclear energy and advances conservation and alternative energy initiatives."
He's right.
The biggest offender putting obnoxious emissions into the air is Communist China. Capping Americans and letting Communist China (and India) pollute would handicap all Americans economically and yet provide no solution.
Much better than U.S. "cap and trade" would be increasing U.S. energy production by building more non-polluting nuclear energy-generating sources, such as our local Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
The Wall Street Journal has hit the nail on the head by saying editorially: "Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street 'green tech' investors who know how to leverage the political class."
Most of us want lower taxes, lower energy costs -- and reduction in objectionable emissions. There are reasonable ways to seek all of those desirable things -- but undesirable "cap and trade" is not one of them.
We need stable energy prices that are high enough to incentivise conservation and renewables.Nuclear makes sense as part of the mix,but the real news is that we are not going to use as much energy going forward as we have in the past.Nothing can replace petroleum which is now half gone.The second half is harder to get to and will cost much more.
Our exponential population growth combined with exponential energy and resourse usage has brought us to the end of growth as we have known it.Conservation is about to become a way of life for us all.Within four years there will be worldwide shortages of oil and those with the money will get the oil.New oil production is not keeping up with reduced production at the older wells.We have known this was comming for decades and now it's here.Even the IEA has changed their tune after being overly optimistic for decades.
Each and every one of us needs to formulate a plan for a life using less of everything,minimizing our dependence on oil,and thinking about local food production.
If this sounds nutty,then wait two years until you are desperate.
I will wait the "two years".
By then, people may be desperate enough to end the "wealth re-distribution" and ditch the Dems and greenies. We can then start off-shore and ANWR drilling and begin processing the vast untouched reserves of shale oil in the West.
At a price, yes...sure beats Algore's "carbon-credit brokerage" and nationwide government-imposed brown-outs though.
Rolando
Oil shale is energy neutral,it takes as much energy to produce as it yields.There are some pockets of oil within oil shale,but the amount is not significant.Off-shore and ANWR oil would not change our need to power down.We and the world use more than can be produced.
This is not a liberal/conservative issue,this is a game changer for us all.We are simply going to be forced to conserve by the limits of availability.
Read about peak oil.There is an amazing body of non-political knowledge out there.
We would like to express our gratitude to Zach Wamp for having the courage to defend us from cap and trade, a ponzy scheme that will kill the U.S. economy and drive many of us into dire poverty.
As per a leaked memo from the Obama administration, cap and trade would reduce household income by more than $7,000 each and every year. http://www.heartland.org/publications/environment%20climate/article/25508/Economic_Studies_Support_Leaked_Memo.html
Obama’s ACES Act (cap and trade), however, will cost us much, much more than $7,000 per household! It will cost many of us our businesses. It will cost many of us our jobs. It will cost all of us our freedoms and our future.
No patriotic and informed American can support the ACES Act (cap and trade), based on the global warming scam.
Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.
Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, the United Nations, etc.) -- all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.
Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don't have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can’t protect the environment. Just look at Haiti!
Or login with:
New Account