The TRUE Cost of "Cap and Trade"

Documenting the coming economic collapse, thanks to Obama and "global warming."

“Placeholders” in the cap and trade bill July 1, 2009

Filed under: Cap and Trade Lies,Cap and Trade News,Contacting Politicians — Amy Curtis @ 10:22 pm

Two days ago, I reported that a good portion of the cap and trade bill hasn’t even been written, despite it passing the House and being one step closer to the law of the land.

Michelle Malkin reports today about “placeholders” in the bill – citations that note things will be added at a later date.  The thing is, will they be added before the Senate votes on cap and trade?  Why – after Obama’s pledge of transparency and that bills would be online for 5 days prior to a vote – were these things not in the bill when the House voted on it?

When I live-blogged the House debate on cap-and-tax last Friday, I noted the existence of a “placeholder” in the bill. Rep. Joe Barton mentioned it was unprecedented to have such a mechanism (allowing bill-writers to insert language to be determined after the law was approved) in a bill up for final passage. Later, I noted that Barney Frank explained on the floor on Friday that the placeholder in the cap and trade bill apparently will deal with regulations of financial derivatives market associated with reducing carbon emissions. Frank said he was confident a “good system will be in place.”

Well, I looked up the placeholder in Waxman’s late-night, 300-page manager’s amendment.

I’m no great shakes at law, since they clearly are thousands upon thousands of pages, but it really can’t be legal for our government to pass a law that isn’t even written.  I mean they could put pretty much anything in this bill and say it was approved and get away with it.

And a very astute commenter notes:

So I ask these morons in the Senate…. would they sign a loan agreement that had a “placeholder” in it?

Exactly.  Would YOU sign a loan agreement or any sort of contract before reading the thing in full and completely knowing the terms?

I think not.  It could spell financial ruin for you.

But that’s how our government operates.  They can now throw anything into this bill and get it turned into law.


Inhofe still says cap and trade dead

But don’t rest on your laurels.  Just don’tContact your Senators at (202) 224-3121.

With yesterday’s ruling that Al Franken will be a Senator (gag), that gives Democrats a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators.  Which means at least 11 have to turn – and all Republicans have to vote “nay” – to kill cap and trade for now.

From Michelle Malkin:

U.S. Jim Inhofe, who earlier said a criminal investigation “probably should be’’ conducted into allegations the EPA suppressed a climate change report, conceded Tuesday he is not qualified to make that determination.

“I have no way of knowing,’’ the Oklahoma Republican said.

Inhofe, however, stood by his prediction that a historic climate change bill narrowly approved by the House last week faces certain defeat in the Senate.

“It’s dead in the water,’’ he said.

Inhofe said the much-anticipated conclusion of a Senate race in Minnesota that will give Democrats the 60 votes needed to overcome Republican filibusters would not be enough to save the climate change bill.

“I’ll tell you what a lot of people are thinking, and that is it looks like things are going to be over and we are going to get the clown from Minnesota,’’ he said.

“They are not going to get more than 35 votes.’’

Asked if he was referring to Al Franken as the clown from Minnesota, Inhofe confirmed he was.

“I didn’t mean to be disrespectful. I don’t know the guy, but … for a living he is a clown,’’ the senator said.

“That’s what he does for a living.’’

But I repeat – I implore you – DO NOT REST ON YOUR LAURELS.  Do not let this news make you feel in any way comfortable.  It is a glimmer of hope, and nothing more.

You need to make your voice heard.


Electric vehicle mandate

Filed under: Costs of Cap and Trade,Economic Impact — Amy Curtis @ 10:21 pm

The cap and trade bill lays out a mandate forcing utility companies to provide plug-in stations for electric cars.

Who will pay for it?


At anywhere from $1,000-$10,000 a pop.  From the Green Hell blog:

Who will pay for this? Waxman-Markey says that,

Each State regulatory authority (in the case of each electric utility for which it has ratemaking authority) and each utility (in the case of a nonregulated utility) shall consider whether, and to what extent, to allow cost recovery for plans and implementation of plans.

So state regulators and utilities will get to decide whether to pass the costs on to consumers as increased electricity prices or whether to directly stick property and business owners with the costs. To the extent tax credits/deductions are available, taxpayers will pick up the tab.

How much will this cost? How much money do you have?

While Coulomb Technologies’ sells its “Smartlet” for between $1,000-$2,000 per charging station, Toyota’s unit costs $4,600, Edison EV’s cost $5,000-$10,000 (indoor units) and $15,000-$20,000 (outdoor units), and solar-power stations cost as much as $85,000 for a six-station unit.

Without the Waxman-Markey mandate, it’s not likely that too much electric vehicle infrastructure would be installed.


Poll: 56% don’t want to pay more

From Rasmussen:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.

Sixty-three percent (63%) rate creating jobs as more important than taking steps to stop global warming. For 22%, stopping global warming is more important.

For the 35% who are willing to pay $100 or more per year, you’ll get your wish.

For the rest of us – especially the majorities who worry about energy costs and creating jobs – the House just gave you the collective finger last week.  Will you contact the Senate and tell them what a majority of you have told Rasmussen?

United States Capitol switchboard – (202) 224-3121.


A little tanget

Filed under: Uncategorized — Amy Curtis @ 10:21 pm

This isn’t exactly related to cap and trade, but it ties in directly to the notion, held dearly by leftists, liberals and environmentalists, that the government can tax and control your behavior because, well, they can* (see tangent below).

And this shouldn’t be rocket science to anyone – when you tax something, you get less of it.  Why do you think politicians tax cigarettes?  Or want to tax alcohol or “junk food”?  It’s because they want you to do less – less smoking, less drinking, less eating.

The purpose of “cap and trade” is the same.  It is designed to make energy prices skyrocket (in Obama’s own words) so YOU use less energy.  Not by choice, but by fiscal mandate.

The same thing applies to gas taxes.  Sure, politicians can bloviate all they want about the “evil” oil companies and exorbitant prices.  But taxies levied against an oil company for “excessive profits ” aren’t paid by the company.  They’re passed along to the consumer.  And anyone who tells you otherwise is either naive or a liar.  So when you raise taxes on oil companies to “punish” them, the consumer gets it in the end and high gas prices discourage driving.

How do I know that?

Because it’s been on the eco-facists’ agenda for a while.  They, of course, always look at Europe as the model of efficiency, forgetting that most of the European continent (3,930,000 sq mi) is only slightly larger than the entire COUNTRY of the United States (3,794,066 sq mi).  In a lot of European cities, public transportation makes sense because the cities are laid out in a commuter-friendly way.  Only a few major metropolitan areas in the United States can say the same (I, for example, probably wouldn’t drive a car on a daily basis if I lived in Chicago, because we’ve spent time there getting around easily on public transportation – including the EL and the subway…something my home city doesn’t have).

Lots of people live in suburban areas that were not designed to accomodate such mass transit.

And I believe – thanks to American ingenuity and hard work – people should be able to leave the city (especially when cities are often rife with violence and other crime) and live where they please.

Anyway, if increased taxes are designed to curb behavior, they work.  When gas prices were up in my area around $3-$4/gallon last year, it curbed driving.

But there’s an unintended consequence politicians either forget about or plan to compensate for by more taxes.  And that’s decreased tax revenue.  Because even if you raise taxes on a product with the intention of forcing people to use less of the product, people will use less, but you’ll also reap less tax revenue.  It happened with gas taxes.

So what’s the new proposed solution?  Abolishing the gas tax and taxing you by the mile.  GPS systems in your car.  Which, yes, means the government will know not only how far you drive, but where you drive** (more on that below, too) and tax you accordingly.

As of right now, the proposed measure is 1-2 cents per mile for cars and light trucks.  Okay.  I drive about 1,200 miles a month give or take.  That’s about $12 bucks.  But what’s to stop the government from raising that to 10-cents a mile?  50-cents?  A dollar?  Or more?

All in the name of protecting the environment.  On top of cap and trade, which will pretty much raise the price of energy by 100% and everything else anywhere between 50% and 100%, can you afford that, too?


Tangents within a tangent

* Why is it liberals think they can control everything you say and do, including what we eat and how we exercise, and even endorsing moratoriums on children and/or sterilization in the name of “environmental protection” but will turn around and absolutely blow a gasket if someone dares talk about abstinence education, points out that the pill causes environmental damage too, or that perhaps random promiscuous sex is bad for your health?

When the government limits what we can eat, how many kids we can have, or hauls some of us off to fat camp in the name of “national health”, my body is suddenly their business.  But the second I (who am pro-life) say they shouldn’t kill another human being who happens to be “inconvienient” or “unplanned”, or oppose same-sex marriage, suddenly what they do in the privacy of their homes or the abortion clinic is none of our damned business.

Hypocritical much?

** Like this won’t be abused.  Come on, you just KNOW that there’s some politician or PC leftwing group out there who’d be absolutely itching to use the GPS information to track all sorts of things.  Like, you know, if you make too many stops at the local custard stand or if you just happen to go to a church that professes an “old attitude” toward something like gay marriage.  If cap and trade is going to have government officials coming to your house to inspect it for “eco-friendliness” before you’re allowed to sell your own personal property, what’s going to stop some Food Czar or Goodthink Czar from showing up to talk about your little side trips to unapproved places that make Obama sad?


Remember my discussion on language?

Filed under: Cap and Trade Lies,Cap and Trade News,Contacting Politicians — Amy Curtis @ 7:43 pm

Well, this explains how a bribe becomes “sweetener” to help undecided politicians vote in favor of something like cap and trade.

The thing is, this isn’t private money exchanging hands.  It’s taxpayer dollars – YOUR MONEY – that’s bribing people to vote to put you out of work, into poverty, and with skyrocketing costs*

CONTACT THE SENATE.  Tell them your tax dollars are not bribe money.


Selling your home? Not if you don’t satisfy cap and trade.

From, cap and trade provisions that allow government beaureaucrats into your home to make sure it toes the “green” line…before they allow you to sell it.

Yeah.  You read that right.  The house you own, the house you work to pay for, the house that’s your property is subject to strict government regulation and inspection before YOU can do something with it!  You know, like sell it.

Within cap and trade is a provision which mandates a national building code for energy efficiency. This national building code would override all state provisions already in place. By 2012, new buildings are to be 30% more efficient than they are under current regulations. By 2016, new buildings are to be 50% more efficient, and so on. “New buildings” include new homes, thus making new homes more expensive which will only serve to hamper the housing market.

Also, the bill stipulates that state codes match the national codes, or the said state codes will be nullified, and states will lose federal funding and carbon allowances. Remember, in this new world of cap and trade, the federal government has the authority to “allow” businesses within a state or community to conduct operations and emit carbon. Thus, millions of private sector jobs would be politicized under cap and trade. This type of politicization can only be found throughout history in societies governed by tyrants.

Perhaps President Obama and Nancy Pelosi are taking advantage of the foolish anti-business climate prevalent in America today. If one argues on behalf of business, he or she is part of the old, racist, rich, fascist, balding, all white male club. So maybe explaining how cap and trade will kill businesses and jobs is not so advantageous. However, homeowners have also been made the target of further regulations under cap and trade.

In this economy, selling a home may be the last ditch effort of someone trying to keep his or her head above water. Perhaps an individual or a family has to move on short notice but can only do so if the house they own is sold. Or, even more common nowadays, people are downsizing and are attempting to sell their house in order to buy something more in line with personal budget concerns. Whatever the case may be, Americans ought to be able to sell their houses whenever they want, and in whatever condition they want to sell it in, so long as the buyer agrees to the deal. That idea is not good enough for our federal government, instead, through cap and trade they will exact control through federal inspections of your home before you are allowed to sell.

So, new homes will be more expensive, thus limiting who can afford a new home, and further depressing the housing market. Now what of this inspection business? Yes, the cap and trade bill that passed through congress allows for somebody from the government to come into your house and inspect your windows, appliances, A/C, furnace, and anything else that you can think of to make sure your house is on par with the new national building codes. Not only will they inspect your house, but they will then be able to mandate that you, the seller, provide the necessary remedies regardless of cost, within a certain amount of time BEFORE YOU MAY SELL YOUR OWN HOUSE. So unless you bought a house that is seen as suitable through the eyes of the federal government, you can expect to spend plenty of money remaking your house, even if selling your house is a matter of economic survival for you.