GOP slams Democrats' climate bill as an energy tax

[SpartanDem]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans on Saturday slammed a Democratic bill before the House that seeks to address climate change, arguing that it amounts to an energy tax on consumers.

In the GOP's weekly radio and Internet address, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence said Congress should instead open the way for more domestic oil and natural gas production and ease regulatory barriers for building new nuclear power plants.

"During these difficult times, the American people don't want a national energy tax out of Washington, D.C.," said Pence, the third-ranking House Republican.

Pence reiterated what GOP lawmakers have been saying for weeks: that the climate bill being considered in the House capping releases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would lead to much higher energy costs and accomplish little to counter global warming if other nations do not act as well. The bill's supporters counter that the increased costs can be minimized.

Pence outlined the alternative proposal that he and several other House Republicans unveiled earlier this week. The GOP plan included no mandatory limits on greenhouse gases — something that supporters of the Democratic bill argue is essential to reduce the risks of global warming.



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hqMY8ovawuVn238v83krEh8_dO8QD98PQBLO0

---

What a great alternative

[Old Coot]

1. It is an energy tax, isn't it?

Sometimes a tax can be used to change behavior, as it is in this case.

I think it probably needs to be done, but I wonder how I can afford to live with such greatly increased energy costs. I live in an area that gets its electricity 100% from coal. The proposal is bound to increase the costs of just about everything.

[DCKit]

2. The party of "NO...

sane alternative".

[FreakinDJ]

3. Just sending more jobs to China and more pollution in the atmosphere

Sorry but I can't agree with the "Greeners" on this one

At every step of the way towards environment and climate responsibility thus far all we have accomplished is to drive businesses overseas where they are allowed to pollute to their heart's content.

In short we have accomplished a NET LOSS towards the goal of cleaning up the Global Climate and Environment

LESS THEN ZERO NADA, ZILCH, NOTHING gained from the efforts towards cleaning up the environment as long as we allow goods and services to pour into this country from countries that have zero respect for the environment

[w4rma]

4. So what? The energy industry is one of the few profitable industries left.

And it's overly profitable because they're cannibalizing every other industry to do it.

[Arkana]

5. I swear, the mention of the word "taxes" in the presence of any GOPer

sends them into a writhing, frothing frenzy.

Was it Oliver Wendell Holmes who said that taxes are the price we pay for civilization?

[droidamus2]

6. Have you noticed?

It is evident that what the Republicans want is to keep the generation of energy in this country centralized and in the hands of their cohorts. Many 'Green' energy sources can be used on a personal level ie. Wind turbines and solar voltaic panels (I'm sure there's more but I am far from an expert on green energy). If these were to become popular and affordable enough that people could generate a lot of their own power or at least communities could get together and do so the current 'energy czars' would lose the ability to screw people by over charging for their products and services. Which, as usual, means the party of the corporation the Republicans would get less donation from the big energy companies.

[Old Coot]

7. How the Global Warming Bill Will Affect Your Wallet (Article)

U.S. News and World Report

In the coming weeks, Congress will likely consider a massive global-warming bill to create a new cap-and-trade program to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama praised the bill, dubbed "Waxman-Markey" for its co-sponsors, as a vital step to "create millions of new jobs all across America."

But Obama and supporters of the bill are now facing a litany of charges that the bill is not a good deal for American consumers. Critics on both sides of the political aisle complain that the bill does both too little and too much. Environmentalists say it's too industry-friendly and doesn't do enough in making major inroads against climate change. In May, Greenpeace and a number of other environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth and Public Citizen sent a letter to Congress that said they cannot support the bill on grounds that it gives too many favors to polluters and "does not do what the science says is necessary to avoid the worst effects of global warming and to rescue the climate." Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues that the bill goes too far in regulating energy prices and would cost an American family an average of $1,500 a year in energy bills. That estimate, however, varies from what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has predicted for similar cap-and-trade plans. Here are a few things to know about Waxman-Markey:



What's in the bill? Cap and trade sets a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that a factory, business, utility, or other energy producer is allowed to emit. Waxman-Markey would set a cap that's intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent by 2020. The trade part gives greenhouse-gas emitters--which include some factories and energy producers--opportunities to buy a certain number of permits that allow them go over the cap. The government sells these permits in an auction, which creates a market for carbon permits. Since the price for emitting carbon dioxide would be set by all the individuals and organizations competing in the auction, the idea is that cap and trade is a more "free-market" method of controlling pollution than the government simply taxing or regulating it. The market for carbon permits is estimated to grow to $60 billion by 2012 if the bill is enacted.

Impact on consumers. No one knows exactly how much the Waxman-Markey bill will cost Americans. Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Senate Committee on Finance that cap-and-trade program costs for energy producers would be "passed along to consumers of energy and energy-intensive products," (which would be in the form of higher prices). The CBO estimates that a 15 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 through a cap-and-trade plan would cost the average American household $1,600 a year, with low-income households carrying a heavier burden. Lower-income households tend to spend more of their income on energy than higher-income households, because it is difficult to cut back on necessities like heating. The costs of the Waxman-Markey would differ from the CBO's estimate in a few ways. The costs could be greater because the billaims to reduce not just carbon but other greenhouse gases such as methane. The costs could also be lower: When the federal government auctions off the permits, it gets revenue back that is likely to be spent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090612/ts_usnews/howtheglobalwarmingbillwillaffectyourwallet

[krispos42]

8. I guess this will bring down executive salaries from "exorbitant" to "disgraceful"

to maintain profit margins.

:rofl:

[neverforget]

9. I expect nothing less from the Gas Oil Petroleum Party. The GOP are fossils

with no alternatives or ideas other than tax cuts, fossil fuels, blame Democrats, stall, whine, complain and do anything for the corporations.

[Jack_DeLeon]

10. So when are China and India going to handicap themselves with cap and trade?

they arent, and the American people will be screwed by it.

[PSPS]

11. "reduce the risks of global warming"

Pence outlined the alternative proposal that he and several other House Republicans unveiled earlier this week. The GOP plan included no mandatory limits on greenhouse gases — something that supporters of the Democratic bill argue is essential to reduce the risks of global warming.

The usual AP propaganda spin. They use the word "risk" to foster the notion that global warming is simply a "belief" or a "theory." The accurate way to portray this would have been to write, "reduce the effects of global warming."

[Swede Atlanta]

12. Why is Europe so far along this journey?

It is because policy makers there decades ago realized that with none to limited domestic sources of energy, they could only grow their economies with sound energy policies. Those policies embraced the idea that society must use energy wisely and that there must be a clearly understood and recognized cost to energy consumption. That is what drove the cost-effective development of high-speed rail and has borne fruit in the form of smaller, efficient automobiles such as the Smart Car. Homes are generally well insulated and people think twice about turning up the heat or, gasp, having or using air conditioning. As someone who lives in Georgia, I'll give up heat in the winter if I can have AC in summer.

The U.S. is only 5% of the world's population but consumes over 25% of the energy. Putting ourselves on the path to greater energy independence will come at a cost. I think we are smart enough to craft policies that will reasonably allocate those costs across the society. I don't think it needs to necessarily be that those of us whose electricity comes primarily from coal must pay the full cost of making coal-fired plants more environmentally sound or more efficient. We as a society must find a way to share in the burdens of making the whole better.

Conservatives hate the thought of shared sacrifice. They love the idea of no sacrifice or sacrifice only by the "other guy". Progressives see the bounties of society as a collective good, something this is shared, along with sacrifice, across society.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Europe is further along because they have mostly Nuclear power

this isn't about sacrifice its about not reducing ourselves to a 3rd world country

[Odin2005]

14. Watch out, the anti-nuclear nuts will crucify you for stating those pesky facts.

When the anti-nuclear nuts attack JAMES LOVELOCK of all people because he supports nuclear that is simply appalling.