Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on May 15, 2009, 04:41:28 PM
-
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5iS14YOIUrpdmPuNylwKcVpSnmAD986RU380
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Democrats' bill to limit gases blamed for global warming would generate a fraction of the money President Barack Obama wanted to get from it to pay for a middle-class tax credit.
Leaders of the House Energy committee released new details of the legislation on Friday in advance of the panel voting on the measure by the end of next week. The bill — the American Clean Energy and Security Act — would for the first time mandate reductions in the heat-trapping gases linked to global warming, and also shift the country toward cleaner energy sources.
The bill would cap emissions at a certain level, and distribute permits to companies to meet increasingly lower pollution targets.
In his budget, Obama called for auctioning off 100 percent of the pollution permits, a strategy that would have raised nearly $650 billion over the next decade. Most of the money would have paid for a tax credit to offset higher energy prices expected to be passed down from industries as they reduce the pollution that causes global warming.
But House Democrats said Friday they plan to auction only 15 percent of the allowances to help lower- and middle-income families pay for higher energy bills. The remainder will be given away to a variety of industries and states to ease costs and to help pay for improvements in energy efficiency and investments in clean-energy technology.
A White House spokeswoman on Friday said the bill shields consumers in other ways.
"The summary released today ... indicates there are a number of mechanisms in place that are aimed at protecting consumers, and we're glad to see that Congress is taking this issue seriously," said Christine Glunz with the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "We remain committed to a market-based emissions reduction program that generates enough revenue to aid consumers."
The measures are the latest concessions to come out of weeks of negotiations aimed at winning over the committee's moderate Democrats who expressed concern about the cost the legislation would place on industry and electricity customers in their districts.
Reps. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., have already agreed to lower targets for renewable energy, to require a smaller reduction by 2020 in the emissions blamed for global warming, and to give away valuable pollution permits to electricity distribution companies and auto manufacturers.
But how the legislation would handle the distribution of permits in a program that caps and puts a price on greenhouse gases was a central piece that has been missing from the bill since its unveiling in March.
Moderate Democrats from Southern and Midwestern states dependent on fossil fuels and home to heavy industry balked at selling off the permits, saying that it would place an unfair burden on industry. Republicans called the sale a national energy tax.
But Obama has said that any plan to control global warming pollution should compensate consumers and communities if there are additional costs.
That compensation came largely through an extension of his Making Work Pay tax credit, Obama's signature $400 tax cut for most workers.
Congress had already voted to let it expire at the end of 2010 when it passed a nonbinding budget blueprint in April. The proposal in the climate bill takes away the money that would have paid for it. Starting in 2012, the revenues from auctioning off all the permits would have generated around $65 billion a year.
First: This is good news. The democrats got scared because they saw that this will KILL industry and the middle class.
Secondly, even for the AP, this is an AMAZINGLY biased piece.
Beginning with the charaterization from the headline: TAX CUT shortchanged.... BECAUSE THEY AREN'T GOING TO TAX ENERGY in the first place!
Secondly, I love the fact that they plan on TAXING industry (who will then pass on the tax to consumers) and then paying consumers to compensate the fact that prices whent up! Ah yes, of course, minus the government cut.
But people will think this is a wonderful idea. (Including that moron at the NYTimes who claims we've "underpriced" carbon dioxide...)
-
All in the name of a fake "scientific" theory of global warming.
People are going to laugh themselves silly at our gullibility in another 50 years.
-
People are going to laugh themselves silly at our gullibility in another 50 years.
You're assuming that people will be allowed to talk about this or anything else of substance in 50 years.
-
You're assuming that people will be allowed to talk about this or anything else of substance in 50 years.
It won't be 2081 quite yet.
-
You're assuming that people will be allowed to talk about this or anything else of substance in 50 years.
They may not be Americans.
-
"They may not be Americans."
It is likely they will be baboons.
-
Damn dirty apes.
-
We remain committed to a market-based emissions reduction program . . .
This is a lie.
In the plans floated so far, emissions credits and carbon credits are imaginary products assigned or granted by the government.
No rational person will buy imaginary products with real money, so government forces businesses to buy these imaginary products.
There is NO actual market - there's only government coercion!
:mad:
-
Where's Iain? Isn't this his cue to quote every pro-Global Warming site on the web?
-
Where's Iain? Isn't this his cue to quote every pro-Global Warming site on the web?
The sites are being changed from "global warming" to "climate change."
That way everything weather or climate related can be blamed on man, not just warmer temperatures.
-
"They may not be Americans."
It is likely they will be baboons.
No Cocker-Roaches
-
Two snipes at me. Each in the top two threads in Politics. I'm famous in a place I barely post.
-
As our only liberal poster (or one of few anyway) you sorta have to expect that a bit.
-
I'm a liberal because I don't toe the conservative line on global warming?
And no, I don't expect it, because it's only started recently.
-
I'm just curious: how recently?
-
I'm a liberal because I don't toe the conservative line on global warming?
And no, I don't expect it, because it's only started recently.
Iain, you're liberal on a lot more than global warming.
Also, it's just good natured kidding, like we do to fisty. I'd assume the various smart ass comments you make about conservatives are in the same nature.