Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions (What you don't know)

[KMAN]

According to Boehner's office, the $3,100 number is based on a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study released earlier this year that examined cap-and-trade legislation from 2007. Republicans believe the new legislation for 2009, in its final form, will be similar to the 2007 bill.

“We took MIT’s own estimate of a key cap-and-trade bill from the 110th Congress (S. 309), cosponsored by then-Senator Obama, that said S. 309 would generate $366 billion in revenues in 2015,” Boehner's office told CNSNews.com. “We took MIT’s own number – $366 billion – and divided that by the number of U.S. households. … Using this formula, you get roughly $3,000 per household.”


So let me get this right... the Obama administration realizes they need to get more money to fund their spending spree... and if the American people catch on to what they are doing and realize how much this is going to cost them they will move that cost to corporations who will have to buy carbon permits from the government?????

And if it doesn't get passed on to the corporations we all know that the bottom 3rd of wage earning households are not going to have to pay for this.... So the most successful in this country will be paying even more....

How in the hell is this going to create jobs in this country???? Instead of making it easier to do business here in the states these guys are going to force more companies to move oversees... What the hell is wrong with these people???????

Yet Obama flies around the country emitting all kinds of CO2.... You libs should be pissed at Obama for not walking the talk! But are you...hell no

CNSNews.com - Cap and Trade a ‘Declaration of War,’ Say Republicans

 

[WillowTree]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMJ3Xow9ZGM[/ame]

 

[WillowTree]

KPCB

 

[Zoom-boing]

The firms, with similar goals, differ in that GIM focuses mostly on public equities, while KPCB focuses on startup or expanding companies that haven't gone public yet.

But without government action on climate change, some business analysts say green companies backed by KPCB are either unlikely to be profitable or that their growth will be slow.

To Gore's critics, his financial stake in businesses that could profit from government policies designed to fight global warming demonstrates a motivation other than a selfless desire to protect the planet.

Gore has lobbied Congress and state governments to enact bolder environmental regulations. Gore's defenders counter that he and his partners are simply looking at companies that will have long-term sustainability during the "climate crisis."

"There are a bunch of folks that stand to make real money, who have invested a lot in companies that are not worth real money until the agenda that this ad campaign is advocating is achieved," Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-enterprise think tank, said in an interview.

Companies in the KPCB portfolio, as start-up companies, might be in greater need of a helping hand from government policy changes, but the larger, more established firms in the GIM portfolio also could benefit if the government manipulates the current market by mandating alternative fuels or imposing a cap and trade system.

As a private citizen, Gore is not required to publicly disclose how much of his personal fortune is invested in the venture capital firm. KPCB spokeswoman Brianna Woon declined to say how much Gore had invested in the firms, and she said the firms couldn't comment at this time on whether the greentech companies can succeed without government action.

Lack of government action could delay profits, but the free market is nonetheless moving toward clean energy on its own, said Gary Patterson, an analyst with the Fiscal Doctor Inc., of Wellesley, Mass. He predicts a good return for the venture capital firm's green investments.

"It would be very helpful if you have government initiative. Without it, it will take longer for these to be economically viable," Patterson told Cybercast News Service
However, Bert Ely, a financial analyst with Ely & Associates of Alexandria, Va., is skeptical that the kind of green investment portfolio Gore is advocating can be profitable without government action. History has shown green companies to be risky ventures, he says

"Wind power, solar and bio-fuels all operate on tax subsidies or purchase requirements," Ely told Cybercast News Service. "The government stimulates demand. The most notorious subsidy is the 51 cent gas credit for ethanol."

"To the extent that you got some kind of government mandate here, whether it is cap-and-trade or a purchasing requirement, a taxpayer subsidy, to me that's a dicey way to look for a return on a venture because what the government giveth it can taketh away -- and often does," Ely said. "You're making a political bet, not an economic bet."

(A cap and trade system would set limits on the amount of carbon a company can emit. The limits are called a "cap." If a company has to exceed the limit, it would be allowed to buy credits from companies that pollute less. This transfer would be the "trade.")

In public statements, KPCB has pointed to the likelihood of new government policies as a selling point for investors.

"The growing sense of global urgency over our twin crisis -- climate change and energy security -- is now driving businesses to become green, consumers to demand green and policy makers to drive policies to accelerate the market adoption of green products," KPCB partner John Denniston said in a May 1 statement announcing the new ventures.

James Ritterbusch, a petroleum analyst and president of Galena, Ill.-based Ritterbusch & Associates, is skeptical about the ability of the green firms to succeed without government help.

"It would be a challenge," Ritterbusch told Cybercast News Service . "Ethanol would be a model. It was very difficult for ethanol to make inroads at all. Without a subsidy, it's an uphill battle."

LiveLeak.com - Al Gore set to profit from sustainable and 'green' technologies