Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
moreso than the so-called "patriot act"? I'd say that's a little alarmist, eh?
And I'm afraid I don't see the problem with making us more energy efficient and getting us off of foreign oil.
Perhaps you can tell me what's onerous about that.
Far more onerous is being price gouged by oil companies... but maybe that's just me.
As far as I can tell, there is going to come a point where we simply can't generate adequate energy based on our current paradigm. That would lead to a total breakdown in societal norms. It might not happen now or in 20 years, but it will happen if we keep sitting on our butts and accommodating oil rich sheiks. We knew that during the 70's. It's time to stop being ostriches... when are we going to start? AFTER the civil wars over energy start?
Well first of all Jillian, this bill does nothing to rid us of your dependance on those same oil rich shieks you mentioned. In fact by punishing fossil fuel producers in this nation what you do, is provide further incentives for those same oil producing nations. This is NOT an energy bill Jillian it is a bill that aims to collect revenue on the the overproduction of carbon. It further aims to intrude in ALL aspects of federal, state, local governments by re-writing laws that this bill deems not in complience with the so called norms. Further, it aims to intrude in your personal life by dictating to you and I what our homes can and cannot have in them. The basic premise of this bill is to reduce carbon emissions and is based on IPCC findings that are as of yet unproven, setting that aside for a moment, the overall goal of this bill is to reduce our CO2 output in order to have a net positive effect on global warming. The aim of the bill assumes that EVERY nation will adopt this standard and by doing so in 100 years according to the EPA after all this Govt. intervention into our personal lives. will reduce the overall Global temp. by .02 degree's. Now China and India show no signs of slowing down in their production of coal fired plants at the rate of around 1 a week and have also indicated no fondness for adopting any sort of standard like this at all. So therefor this bill is dead from the start as to it's overall aims. That leaves us with a bill that will dictate to you what kind of car you will drive, home you can have, energy you can use, lights you can have, the list is endless, in an effort to collect taxes to prop up a Carbon Trading Scheme. Funny Jillian, I never saw once the entire life of the USA Patriot Act, a Govt. agency actually telling me if my home meets their approval or not.
You are dead wrong.
Navy1960 said:I know this was long, and this bill is chalk full of thse little highlights all in the name of unproven science and a large scheme to enrich enviro-business. THIS BILL IS A MASSIVE TAX SCHEME and it constantly amazes me that some environmentalists will scream to high heaven for their first Amendment rights but see no problem in taking away the rights of others while cramming this nonsense down the Americna publics throat..
Once again, the bill is still in draft form. Henry Waxman was on C-Span this morning discussing some of the misconceptions of the existing draft as well as some provisions that will be revamped. One of the misconceptions is that all homes will now be required to meet the enviro standards set up per [some of] the clauses you cited. That is absolutely not true. NEW HOME buildings will have certain environmental standards (which have not been permanently defined). EXISTING HOMEOWNERS will be offered a tax credit if they wish to upgrade to those standards.
I frankly can't see what all the griping is over this particular part of the so-called "cap and trade" bill. (Cap and trade being only one part of the total new ENERGY BILL). After all, we already have specific government guidelines for clean air and water and the flow of electricity into permanent structures. What is WRONG with trying to make that more efficient, and at the same time more environmentally friendly and less costly in the long run?
In my opinion, ANY general function that affects the wellbeing of ALL Americans needs to be regulated.
As a specific example as it relates to having control over private building bylaws, a friend of mine owns a condo where the By-Laws specifically state that there shall be no added feature to the individual condo that would require the placement of any outside equipment. He lives in an area where they have frequent power failures (due to lack of upgrading in the area of the lines and poles so that when the wind blows more than 50 mph, his power goes out). He wanted to install an expensive, a high-capacity generator, which required a box to be placed outside, about 4X4X3", and the Association said no, he could not do it, not even in his own back yard! When aesthetics trump necessity, that is bullshit.
Excuse me Maggie all these chapters I am posting are form the FINAL PASSED House version of the bill. So if Mr. Waxman is now saying that it is a draft version that he is saying that he has mislead the US Congress? As for your assertion on what is wrong with making things more effiecient, I don't disagree with you on that but that is not the aim of this bill. Secondly, think about this a moment, if you have a national building code standard that applies across the board in an effort to make homes environmentally friendly, what you end up doing is making some regions codes better and some regions worse. For example, Arizona has no need for a Hurricane standard in their building codes and Fl. does. That is the exact reason WHY states and local govts. are better at deciding their own building codes rather than the Federal Govt. As for your example on your friends bylaws, let me give you a little food for thought here, that is a direct property rights issue and those that form the association enter into it knowing UPFRONT what those bylaws are. So when the Federal Govt. comes along and usurps those bylaws they are in effect uspurping the property rights of the homeowners withiin the association. Again all in the name of some unproven voodoo science that the IPCC has spread around the world. The fact is Maggie, had we reacted this way in the 1970's when the Global Cooling scare we being bounced around by the very same UN we all would now have solar powered heaters in every backyard. The point here is Maggie, that these sorts of things need to be tempered with a good understanding of what the actual science is and not the musings of a former politcal figure who is heavily vested financially in it's success.
You apparently like to read, Navy, so read this. And in case you think it's a "liberal" analysis, click on the sources at the bottom of the analysis.
FactCheck.org: Cap-and-Trade Cost Inflation
I've read it and I've read the CBO report too, in fact Maggie, here is something for you to ponder. that number your talking about takes into acount "rebates" from the CBO report when the actualy figures match up almost exactly. What you don't see put up on this report are the things that are not published, for example, fuel costs, transportation costs, etc. there are literally hundreds of Value added taxes in this Bill. One example would be a company that is forced to pay for caps on fossil fuel produced domestically will simply pass that along to the consumer. Thats not me talking thats literally everyone that supports and oposses this bill. You have many examples of this bill in action a good example would be Spain and the disaster it has cause to thier economy. Other nations that have put this off include Aus. because they simly cannot afford. it.
I invite you to read this!!
One option for reducing emissions in a cost-effective manner is to establish a carefully
designed cap-and-trade program. Under such a program, the government would set
gradually tightening limits on emissions, issue rights (or allowances) consistent with
those limits, and then allow firms to trade the allowances among themselves. The net
financial impact of such a program on low- and moderate-income households would
depend in large part on how the value of emission allowances was allocated. By itself,
a cap-and-trade program would lead to higher prices for energy and energy-intensive
goods. Those price increases would impose a larger burden on low- and moderateincome
households than on higher-income households, relative to either their income
or total spending. Lawmakers could choose to offset the price increases experienced by
low- and moderate-income households by providing for the sale of some or all of the
CO2 emission allowances and using the revenues to compensate such households.
However in the bill the sale of those allowences do NOT compensate for that!
My testimony makes the following key points about those issues:
B A cap-and-trade program, like a tax on CO2 emissions, could raise a significant
amount of revenue because the value of the allowances created under such a program
would probably be substantial. As the cap specified in legislation became
more stringent over time, the value of the allowances would grow. A key decision
for policymakers is whether to sell all of the emission allowances, thereby capturing
their value in the form of federal revenue that could be used in various ways, or to
give some of them away (for example, to companies that produce or use fossil
fuels).
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10018/03-12-ClimateChange_Testimony.pdf
Maggie, make no MISTAKE this is a TAX!! and bigtime TAX!! and all in a time when your economy is in the tank. Thats from the CBO and thats the things you never hear about. While I don't don't doubt that after incentives that someones utility bill may or may not be higher, that is not taking into account Value Adds!!
These changes in regulations and taxation conerning hydrocarbon energy use will cost us ALL more money.
There can be no doubt of that.
As to how much it will cost us individually and the economy collectively?
Well that remains to be seen, doesn't it?
I suspect that all these economic projections, regardless of who they're coming from) are largely SWAG.(scientific wild-assed guesses)
Remember that the same econmic geniuses who failed to see the net negative effects of FREE TRADE, tax cuts for billionares, and cheaper money for real estate and NINA loans -- all of which have had pretty obviously negative impacts on our economic -- are still the "experts" in charge of our economic universe.
I'm truly beginning to have the same kind of contempt for the dicipline of macro economics that I have for the science of clinical psychology.
They never seem to get it right, yet we keep depending on this fools' science as though it had some kind of mathematic certainty.
It the science of maco-economics actually worked, we'd never have these wild fluxuations in the economy.
Once again, the bill is still in draft form. Henry Waxman was on C-Span this morning discussing some of the misconceptions of the existing draft as well as some provisions that will be revamped. One of the misconceptions is that all homes will now be required to meet the enviro standards set up per [some of] the clauses you cited. That is absolutely not true. NEW HOME buildings will have certain environmental standards (which have not been permanently defined). EXISTING HOMEOWNERS will be offered a tax credit if they wish to upgrade to those standards.
I frankly can't see what all the griping is over this particular part of the so-called "cap and trade" bill. (Cap and trade being only one part of the total new ENERGY BILL). After all, we already have specific government guidelines for clean air and water and the flow of electricity into permanent structures. What is WRONG with trying to make that more efficient, and at the same time more environmentally friendly and less costly in the long run?
In my opinion, ANY general function that affects the wellbeing of ALL Americans needs to be regulated.
As a specific example as it relates to having control over private building bylaws, a friend of mine owns a condo where the By-Laws specifically state that there shall be no added feature to the individual condo that would require the placement of any outside equipment. He lives in an area where they have frequent power failures (due to lack of upgrading in the area of the lines and poles so that when the wind blows more than 50 mph, his power goes out). He wanted to install an expensive, a high-capacity generator, which required a box to be placed outside, about 4X4X3", and the Association said no, he could not do it, not even in his own back yard! When aesthetics trump necessity, that is bullshit.
Excuse me Maggie all these chapters I am posting are form the FINAL PASSED House version of the bill. So if Mr. Waxman is now saying that it is a draft version that he is saying that he has mislead the US Congress? As for your assertion on what is wrong with making things more effiecient, I don't disagree with you on that but that is not the aim of this bill. Secondly, think about this a moment, if you have a national building code standard that applies across the board in an effort to make homes environmentally friendly, what you end up doing is making some regions codes better and some regions worse. For example, Arizona has no need for a Hurricane standard in their building codes and Fl. does. That is the exact reason WHY states and local govts. are better at deciding their own building codes rather than the Federal Govt. As for your example on your friends bylaws, let me give you a little food for thought here, that is a direct property rights issue and those that form the association enter into it knowing UPFRONT what those bylaws are. So when the Federal Govt. comes along and usurps those bylaws they are in effect uspurping the property rights of the homeowners withiin the association. Again all in the name of some unproven voodoo science that the IPCC has spread around the world. The fact is Maggie, had we reacted this way in the 1970's when the Global Cooling scare we being bounced around by the very same UN we all would now have solar powered heaters in every backyard. The point here is Maggie, that these sorts of things need to be tempered with a good understanding of what the actual science is and not the musings of a former politcal figure who is heavily vested financially in it's success.
The House doesn't ENACT LAW. The Senate does.
And I couldn't care less about government intervention in such areas, just as I feel much more comfortable knowing the CIA is working 24/7 to keep terrorists at bay, and the FBI ever vigilent to keep criminals away from me and my family, and my local first responders doing their part, our Navy constantly patrolling the seas for potential catastrophes.
While you may wrongly believe that this whole energy program is cock and bull to fill Obama's pockets (huh? how?), you are going to be mighty shocked when (not if) there is a genuine global shortage of OIL for anything, even to power our homes, factories and vehicles. That could happen by Iran's deciding to close the Straight of Hormuz to tankers from all over the world. It could happen if a few oil fields are blown up in Saudi Arabia. Then what? We have no Plan B, that's what.
Alternative sources and CONSERVATION are what we should be doing. If the United States doesn't lead the way, it will never happen. I also have more faith in my country's ability to do this, whereas you apparently have no faith at all and consider it all just some grand conspiracy.
You apparently like to read, Navy, so read this. And in case you think it's a "liberal" analysis, click on the sources at the bottom of the analysis.
FactCheck.org: Cap-and-Trade Cost Inflation
I've read it and I've read the CBO report too, in fact Maggie, here is something for you to ponder. that number your talking about takes into acount "rebates" from the CBO report when the actualy figures match up almost exactly. What you don't see put up on this report are the things that are not published, for example, fuel costs, transportation costs, etc. there are literally hundreds of Value added taxes in this Bill. One example would be a company that is forced to pay for caps on fossil fuel produced domestically will simply pass that along to the consumer. Thats not me talking thats literally everyone that supports and oposses this bill. You have many examples of this bill in action a good example would be Spain and the disaster it has cause to thier economy. Other nations that have put this off include Aus. because they simly cannot afford. it.
I invite you to read this!!
One option for reducing emissions in a cost-effective manner is to establish a carefully
designed cap-and-trade program. Under such a program, the government would set
gradually tightening limits on emissions, issue rights (or allowances) consistent with
those limits, and then allow firms to trade the allowances among themselves. The net
financial impact of such a program on low- and moderate-income households would
depend in large part on how the value of emission allowances was allocated. By itself,
a cap-and-trade program would lead to higher prices for energy and energy-intensive
goods. Those price increases would impose a larger burden on low- and moderateincome
households than on higher-income households, relative to either their income
or total spending. Lawmakers could choose to offset the price increases experienced by
low- and moderate-income households by providing for the sale of some or all of the
CO2 emission allowances and using the revenues to compensate such households.
However in the bill the sale of those allowences do NOT compensate for that!
My testimony makes the following key points about those issues:
B A cap-and-trade program, like a tax on CO2 emissions, could raise a significant
amount of revenue because the value of the allowances created under such a program
would probably be substantial. As the cap specified in legislation became
more stringent over time, the value of the allowances would grow. A key decision
for policymakers is whether to sell all of the emission allowances, thereby capturing
their value in the form of federal revenue that could be used in various ways, or to
give some of them away (for example, to companies that produce or use fossil
fuels).
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10018/03-12-ClimateChange_Testimony.pdf
Maggie, make no MISTAKE this is a TAX!! and bigtime TAX!! and all in a time when your economy is in the tank. Thats from the CBO and thats the things you never hear about. While I don't don't doubt that after incentives that someones utility bill may or may not be higher, that is not taking into account Value Adds!!
I never said it would not be taxed. You obviously did NOT read the Factcheck.org analysis. If so, you would have seen this:
"Simplistic and Misleading"
How do Republicans figure American households will be out $3,100? The figure is based in part on a 2007 study by the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The study estimated that a cap-and-trade market for 2015 would be worth $366 billion in revenue. Republicans, figuring that that amount would be passed from the energy companies to consumers, calculated the average cost per household by dividing $366 billion by 117 million households (a population of 300 million divided into households of 2.56 persons) to get $3,128, or roughly $3,100.
However, one of the authors of the MIT study disputes that figure.
In a letter sent to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on April 1, John Reilly, associate director for research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said that the study he coauthored had "been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee." He said the GOP's calculation fails to account for Obama's stated intent to provide rebates to consumers to cushion the effect of increased prices: "[M]any of the proposals currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is simplistic and misleading to only look at the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure of their impact on the average household."
Reilly at first estimated the average annual cost of implementing a cap-and-trade program to each household to be about $340, but he later wrote a follow-up letter to Boehner on April 14 correcting what he said was an error in his calculations and increasing his estimate to about $800. He said his corrected estimate "includes the direct effects of higher energy prices, the cost of measures to reduce energy use, the higher price of goods that are produced using energy, and impacts on wages and returns on capital."
Despite Reilly's objections, Republicans continue to use the $3,100 figure. An April 2 "Leader Alert" on the House Republican Leader's Web site reads: "An MIT professor has questions about the $3,100 figure but his letter makes assumptions that are factually inaccurate." Boehner disputes Reilly's assumption that revenue from a cap-and-trade program would be returned to households: "[W]e all know that Democrats have no intention of using a cap-and-trade system to deliver rebates to consumers; they want the tax revenue to fund more government spending."
So there's your "value added." To say that it had been ignored is only true in that the Republicans ignored it and drew their own conclusions.
And you won't hear bobo or the other like him bitching about this either. We have sent enough overseas to wipe out the wealth of this nation while making corporates even more enriched. It is time to put a stop to this insanity.SEC. 205. TREE PLANTING PROGRAMS.
(a) Findings- The Congress finds that--
(1) the utility sector is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States today, producing approximately one-third of the country's emissions;
(2) heating and cooling homes accounts for nearly 60 percent of residential electricity usage in the United States;
(3) shade trees planted in strategic locations can reduce residential cooling costs by as much as 30 percent;
(4) shade trees have significant clean-air benefits associated with them;
(5) every 100 healthy large trees removes about 300 pounds of air pollution (including particulate matter and ozone) and about 15 tons of carbon dioxide from the air each year;
(e) Agreements Between Electricity Providers and Tree-planting Organizations-
(1) GRANT AUTHORIZATION- In providing assistance under this section, the Secretary is authorized to award grants only to retail power providers that have entered into binding legal agreements with nonprofit tree-planting organizations.
(2) CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT- Those agreements between retail power providers and tree-planting organizations shall set forth conditions under which nonprofit tree-planting organizations shall provide targeted tree-planting programs which may require these organizations to--
(A) participate in local technical advisory committees responsible for drafting general tree-siting guidelines and choosing the most effective species of trees to plant in given locations;
(B) coordinate volunteer recruitment to assist with the physical act of planting trees in residential locations;
(C) undertake public awareness campaigns to educate local residents about the benefits, cost savings, and availability of free shade trees;
Okay while I have no problem with Tree's as a matter of fact I like Tree's . However, the Federal Govt. this is something that clearly can be done private or non-profit between local power companies and others. The Fed. Govt. need not be involved at all in this. However further on in the bill in order to get your carbon offsets companies may be allowed to plant tree's in foreign countries as offset which is completely funded by taxpayers. Tell that to the person who lost their job and cannot get any help that their own govt. Is using taxpayer money to buy tree's to plant in other countries. ...
i wonder when they will attack wood heaters...in private homes
The wood will be regulated also. Forget that antique wood stove it's history. Newer clean energy approved models will be all that will be allowed. I'd say they are probably looking at Cargill for the new E-coal they are buying into. The recently former head CEO of Wells Fargo is now the head of Cargill. Strollingbones woodstove is history when these guys get full control.i wonder when they will attack wood heaters...in private homes
It's in there...You just have to read it...It states that every home in america will be inspected and given a grade on energy and your wood stove falls right into their trap. If you do not fix the problems on the list they compile in a certain time and they will be back to see if you have made the repairs they deem necessary you will be fined $2.000 per item. If you do not pay this fine in a timely manner they will put a lean on your home for the amount owed. You will not be allowed to sell your home until the items are repaired. How fucked up is that?
Proving once again, the whole environazi movement isn't about saving the planet, it's about control.this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.
