The CAP and TRADE Hit parade!!

[Navy1960]

The Cap and Trade Hit Parade...

SEC. 209. PROHIBITION OF RESTRICTIONS ON RESIDENTIAL INSTALLATION OF SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM.

(a) Regulations- Within 180 days after the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, shall issue regulations--

(1) to prohibit any private covenant, contract provision, lease provision, homeowners' association rule or bylaw, or similar restriction, that impairs the ability of the owner or lessee of any residential structure designed for occupancy by 1 family to install, construct, maintain, or use a solar energy system on such residential property; and..

So in this instance with the passage of the bill the Fed. will basically nullify any provisions of any homeowners associations or local and state laws with regards to
installation of what they deem to be environmentally friendly..

Sec 201
`(2) ESTABLISHMENT BY SECRETARY-

`(A) PROCEDURE- In order to establish a national energy efficiency building code as required under paragraph (1)(C), the Secretary shall--

`(i) not later than 6 months prior to the effective date for each target, review existing and proposed codes published or under review by recognized developers of national energy codes and standards;

`(ii) determine the percentage of energy efficiency improvements that are or would be achieved in such published or proposed code versions relative to the target;

`(iii) propose improvements to such published or proposed code versions sufficient to meet or exceed the target; and

`(iv) unless a finding is made under paragraph (1)(B) with respect to a code published by a recognized developer of national energy codes and standards, adopt a code that meets or exceeds the relevant national building code energy efficiency target by not later than 1 year after the effective date of each such target, and by not later than 15 months after the target is established under subsection (a)(1)(A).

c) State Adoption of Energy Efficiency Building Codes-

`(1) REQUIREMENT- Not later than 1 year after a national energy efficiency building code for residential or commercial buildings is established or revised under subsection (b), each State--

`(A) shall--

`(i) review and update the provisions of its building code regarding energy efficiency to meet or exceed the target met in the new national energy efficiency building code, to achieve equivalent or greater energy savings;

`(ii) document, where local governments establish building codes, that local governments representing not less than 80 percent of the State's urban population have adopted the new national code, or have adopted local codes that meet or exceed the target met in the new national code to achieve equivalent or greater energy savings; or

`(iii) adopt the new national code; and

`(A) If the building is subject to the requirements of a State energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B) or a local energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification has been accepted by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (e)(5), or the requirements of the national energy efficiency building code in a State where the State or locality has notified the Secretary of its intent to enforce the provisions of the national energy efficiency building code, a violation shall be determined pursuant to the relevant provisions of State or local law.

`(g) Enforcement Procedures- The Secretary shall propose and, not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, shall define by rule violations of the energy efficiency building codes to be enforced by the Secretary pursuant to this section, and the penalties that shall apply to violators, in any jurisdiction in which the national energy efficiency building code has been made applicable under subsection (d)(1). To the extent that the Secretary determines that the authority to adopt and impose such violations and penalties by rule requires further statutory authority, the Secretary shall report such determination to Congress as soon as such determination is made, but not later than 1 year after the enactment of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.


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..

GovTrack: H.R. 2454: Text of Legislation, Engrossed in House

 

[WillowTree]

they have prepared a special place in hell for al gore and his ilk.

 

[Navy1960]

they have prepared a special place in hell for al gore and his ilk.

I would urge everyone Willow to read as much of this bill as possible, one of the reasons I have been so outspoken on this topic is because this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

 

[RodISHI]

Cool son can ps' with his lovely neighbors in their snooty gated community.. they have one of those big corner lots right at the entry too.

Love it. :sarcasm:

 

[RodISHI]

they have prepared a special place in hell for al gore and his ilk.

I would urge everyone Willow to read as much of this bill as possible, one of the reasons I have been so outspoken on this topic is because this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

Inalienable rights and property rights just ain't what they used to be.

 

[Navy1960]

SEC. 221. EMISSIONS STANDARDS.

Title VIII of the Clean Air Act, as added by section 331 of this Act, is amended by inserting after part A the following new part:

`PART B--MOBILE SOURCES

`SEC. 821. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION STANDARDS FOR MOBILE SOURCES.


`(b) Nonroad Vehicles and Engines- (1) Pursuant to section 213(a)(4) and (5), the Administrator shall identify those classes or categories of new nonroad vehicles or engines, or combinations of such classes or categories, that, in the judgment of the Administrator, both contribute significantly to the total emissions of greenhouse gases from nonroad engines and vehicles, and provide the greatest potential for significant and cost-effective reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. The Administrator shall promulgate standards applicable to emissions of greenhouse gases from these new nonroad engines or vehicles by December 31, 2012. The Administrator shall also promulgate standards applicable to emissions of greenhouse gases for such other classes and categories of new nonroad vehicles and engines as the Administrator determines appropriate and in the timeframe the Administrator determines appropriate. The Administrator shall base such determination, among other factors, on the relative contribution of greenhouse gas emissions, and the costs for achieving reductions, from such classes or categories of new nonroad engines and vehicles. The Administrator may revise these standards from time to time.

I sure hope you don't plan on buying a new ATV or boat if this bill passes. Then you have to deal with your carbon footprint that your existing ATV's put out as well when you go to renew your permits. Again a VALUE ADDED TAX

 

[Navy1960]

they have prepared a special place in hell for al gore and his ilk.

I would urge everyone Willow to read as much of this bill as possible, one of the reasons I have been so outspoken on this topic is because this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

Inalienable rights and property rights just ain't what they used to be.

5th Amend
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


I wonder if these people actually even know there is a such thing as the constitution when they compose these stupid bills like these...

 

[jillian]

this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

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?

 

[strollingbones]

seems it was more of a slippery slope than anyone ever imagined

 

[Navy1960]

SEC. 265. CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH.

(a) In General- The Secretary of Energy is authorized to establish a research program to identify the factors affecting consumer actions to conserve energy and make improvements in energy efficiency. Through the program the Secretary will make grants to public and private institutions of higher education to study the effects of consumer behavior on total energy use; potential energy savings from changes in consumption habits; the ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through changes in energy consumption habits; increase public awareness of Federal climate adaptation and mitigation programs; and the potential for alterations in consumer behavior to further American energy independence. Grants may also fund projects that evaluate or inform public knowledge of the effects of energy consumption habits on these topics.

(b) Grants- The purpose of the program is to provide grants to public and private institutions of higher education to carry out projects which will improve understanding of the effects of consumer behavior on energy consumption and conservation. The Secretary shall make grants on a competitive basis for--

(1) studies of the effects of consumer habits on energy consumption and conservation;

(2) development of strategies that communicate the importance of energy efficiency and conservation to consumers;

(3) identification of best practices to improve consumer energy use habits;

(4) education programs that inform consumers about the implications of consumption habits on energy use and climate change;

(5) evaluation of the effectiveness of programs designed to promote public awareness of Federal Government climate adaptation and mitigation activities; and

(6) other projects that advance the mission of the program.

(c) Report- The Secretary of Energy shall provide Congress with a report on progress towards establishing the program within 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

(d) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

This is the Govt. funded enviro-business INDOCTRINATION section....

 

[strollingbones]

i wonder when they will attack wood heaters...in private homes

 

[MaggieMae]

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 4X4X3feet, and the Association said no, he could not do it, not even in his own back yard! When aesthetics trump necessity, that is bullshit.

 

[Navy1960]

this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

i wonder when they will attack wood heaters...in private homes

Oh gawd. THEY ALREADY DO!!! Unless you're using a metal barrel and just dumping wood in and lighting it up, wood-burning furnaces must meet fire code requirements. And that's not something the Democrats dreamed up on their own.

That's the problem with this type of fear-mongering. A lot of existing regulation already covers what a homeowner can and cannot LEGALLY do if it is going to affect others. Which is the whole purpose.

 

[MaggieMae]

this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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

 

[WillowTree]

they have prepared a special place in hell for al gore and his ilk.

I would urge everyone Willow to read as much of this bill as possible, one of the reasons I have been so outspoken on this topic is because this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

I hope you are sending words of encouragement to Bohner! or is it Boehner?

 

[Navy1960]

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.

 

[Navy1960]

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!!

 

[Navy1960]

they have prepared a special place in hell for al gore and his ilk.

I would urge everyone Willow to read as much of this bill as possible, one of the reasons I have been so outspoken on this topic is because this legislation is the most invasive piece of legislation I have ever seen.

I hope you are sending words of encouragement to Bohner! or is it Boehner?

Actually Willow, I have sent a little note to John Boehner as well as others to keep up the fight against this bill. However, because it has moved on to the Senate, I have recently focused my efforts on sending information to John McCain and John Kyl. It's my hope that the Senate see's some wisdom and puts this bill where it belongs in the dust bin of terrible ideas.