Government Study Projects Failure of Cap and Trade
A new study by the federal government, commissioned by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Edward Markey of (D-MA), and perhaps intended as a weapon against opponents of Pelosi’s national energy tax, has instead, blown up in their faces.
The Study by the Energy Information Administration, which provides official energy statistics from the U.S. Government itself, addresses the economic impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.
This act, the televised circus-like passing in the House of Representatives, of which started the Jolly Rogers website, is a complex bill that regulates greenhouse gas emissions through various mechanisms, incentives and programs.
The study found that electric bills for the average household will increase dramatically – between 19 and 30 percent and even with the rosiest of scenarios – that is, a proliferation of clown cars across America by 2030, there will only be between a 12 and 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions.
According to the government study, Cap and Trade “increases the cost of using energy, which reduces real economic output, reduces purchasing power, and lowers aggregate demand for goods and services. The result is that projected real gross domestic product (GDP) generally falls…”
This means, that an American household with a bill of $70 a month, will see that cost balloon to nearly $100 – and all this while they are dutifully cruising around in their clown cars, and trying to pay for these things without jobs. The study seems to agree with previous work by the Heritage Foundation and the National Black Chamber of Commerce – both which found that “cap and trade” could destroy as many as 2.5 million jobs.
In fact EIA projects total discounted GDP losses between 2012 and 2030 to be about $566 billion on the low side, with a potential loss of nearly $1,897 billion.
And it doesn’t stop there. According to the government’s own most recent study – commissioned by the very people trying to force this energy program onto the public, the whole thing requires the U.S. “significantly increase the total amount of new electric capacity due to the retirement of many existing coal-fired power plants that otherwise would be expected to continue operating beyond 2030.
So, for this wonderful utopian plan to work, the citizens have to absorb higher and higher bills, drive smaller and smaller cars, build an entire grid of new electric-producing stations and destroy all the old ones – across the entire nation. And we must do it while more and more families lose their main source of income.
Lastly – and here’s the capper – the EIA study found that this new energy substitute requires that in “all cases” site and planning processes must be changed so that they can “support a large-scale transformation of the Nation’s electricity infrastructure by 2030.”
So all those pesky public hearings which have been necessary in the past, before the government begins to build a particular project – all that would need a bit of work. Basically, we’d have to just allow the government to seize whatever land they want, so they can begin building immediately.
The study summary ends with this paragraph:
Challenges beyond 2030. As previously noted, the modeling horizon for this analysis ends in 2030. Unless substantial progress is made in identifying low- and no-carbon technologies outside of electricity generation, the ACESA emissions targets for the 2030-to-2050 period are likely to be very challenging as opportunities for further reductions in power sector emissions are exhausted and reductions in other sectors are thought to be more expensive.
So can anyone explain to me with numbers and facts like these, why this even passed through the House? Is there any explanation for even a few people to continue to support this? Is it likely that the other countries producing massive amounts of greenhouse gasses, will sign on to this kind of a plan as well? Because if you accept the global warming scenario, you have to remember the most important term in there – “global.” Without global support, a program like this in the U.S. will simply bankrupt the country – of course, we already are bankrupt. The alleged stimulus plan did that.
For the rest of you out there, just barely making it from month to month with your $70 electric bill – hold on. Just hang in there. Change will come. Not “change we can believe in,” but real change. The storm is upon us – the darkness is upon us – but tomorrow will be a new day. And we will one day breathe again as a truly free people.
And for you people in the ivory towers – you Congressmen – our alleged leadership, know this:
We are coming for you. We are coming for you all.
-We The People.
*****
The complete EIA study of the results of H.R. 2454, should it pass into law and become active are here:
Sarah Palin Comes Out Swinging On Cap & Trade
If there is one person who knows energy in this country it is Sarah Palin. She has taken the gloves off and has come out swinging against cap and trade in her latest Op-ed in the Washington Compost. I love her subtle digs at Washington, DC, Obama, and this piece of legislation. She starts out calling it cap and trade but quickly moves into our beloved term; cap and tax.
Let the games begin!
I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
Absolutely BRILLIANT! – read the entire piece here.
Most States Lose Under Cap-and-Trade; Except Most of the Republican Turncoats’ States
Well, surprise, surprise/sarc… 6 out of the 8 members of the GOP turncoats came from the only states which are likely to see benefits from Cap and Trade (CA, WA, NY, NJ). I’m not surprised about Mark Kirk due to the contributions he received from Exelon Corp. (34.1K), who came out in support of cap and trade legislation and who have been a part of the Chicago political machine themselves. Heck, Exelon was even a bailout candidate!
Mike Castle is a little more head scratching. Delaware does not appear to make money off of this bill, granted they lose far less than other states. The only correlation that I can see is similar to Mike Kirk’s. There is possibly a Delaware business/entity which has ties with Joe Biden and will fare well due to this massive tax hike. The other explanation is where Mike Castle sits on the financial services committee and Wall Street (many of his donors) will make tons from this legislation.
Interesting to note, as well, is that red states will suffer the most. Pay back time? If red states lose money and constituents have nothing in their pockets there is a chance that our drug dealing government can swoop in and tempt you with their entitlement dope and try to get you hooked… More and more is starting to look less like a conspiracy.
Did the GOP Dirty 8, AKA the Cap-and-Tr8ors, Receive Green to be Green?
Just out of curiosity I began digging on the past and current donations of the 8 Benedict Arnold’s of the Republican Party who voted in favor of cap-and-trade.
As I began to investigate who donated significant amounts to each candidate’s piggy bank, I noticed there was a common trend; these 8 GOPers all had enviro-groups, unions, & alternative energy companies putting money in their coffers.
As an interesting aside, there is a PAC called the Tuesday Group PAC and for all intents and purposes, it may as well be called the RINO PAC ~ 6 out of the 8 tr8ors were funded by this PAC.
Those same 6 are also funded by the Republican “Main Street” Partnership PAC ~ another RINO group.
Recall that GE and Honeywell at one point tried to merge – Honeywell has contributed to almost all of these 8 candidates and GE to some as well. GE is predominantly Democrat, so that should tell you something and at times GE has contributed for the 2010 campaign but did not contribute prior to that… Could the “eight” be getting a deal from both? GE and Honeywell are advocates of global warming and the cap-and-trade system.
Mary Bono Mack:
Mary Bono Mack is part of the energy and commerce committee, headed by none other than, Henry Waxman, of the Waxman-Markey notoriety. One could surmise that she was promised something by Waxman and Pelosi and possibly wanted to make her “boss” proud. However, I was also interested to find out who donates to her.
In 2008 the following contributed:
General Electric (enough said) ~ $4.5K
Edison International/Edison Electric Institute ~ $10.75K
PG&E Corporation ~ $3.5K
Calpine Corporation ~ $2.5K
Sempras Energy ~ $2.5K
Excel Energy, FirstEnergy Corp, Electric Power Supply Assn, American Electric Power, Constellation Energy, etc. ~ $10K
SEIU (union is for a cap-and-trade system) ~ $10K
B&D Consulting/Lobbying ~ $3.5K
Honeywell International ~ $10K
And What about 2010?
General Electric (enough said) ~ $1K
Edison International ~ $5K
B&D Consulting/Lobbying ~ $3K
Honeywell International ~ $1K
Mike Castle:
Mike Castle is part of the Education and Labor Committee and is backed by a lot of trade/labor unions – most of which support a cap-and-trade system. He is also part of the Financial Services Committee, which I also question…
Contributions in 2008:
PEPCO Holdings, Inc. ~ $2.5K
Koch Industries (supported by EPA) ~ $1K
Operating Engineers Union ~ $5K
Other AFL-CIO Unions ~ $8.5K
National Education Assn ~ $10K
SEIU ~ $6K
Financial Institutions ~ $371.9K
League of Conservation Voters & Sierra Club ~ $770
Honeywell International ~ $10K
Contributions in 2010:
The Operating Engineers Union (In ‘08 wrote a memo to the senate thanking them for attempting to bring cap-and-trade back) ~ $5K
NRECA (for cap-and-tax) ~ $1K
Heavily Funded by Financial Institutions (kick-backs were put into the cap-and-trade bill for financial companies/mortgages ~ $44.5K
Mark Kirk:
Mark Kirk is on the Appropriations Committee and has been a long-time RINO from Illinois.
Contributions in 2008:
Exelon Corporation (put out press release congratulating the House reps for passing cap-and-trade on Friday). ~ $34.1K
Financial Institutions ~ $136.5K
National Education Assn ~ $19K
Goldman Sachs ~ $15.7K
Honeywell International ~ $5K
League of Conservation Voters ~ $1K
Ocean Champions ~ $4K
Republicans for Environmental Protection ~ $4K
Solar Energy Industries ~ $2K
Peabody Energy(Coal Mining company that thinks Waxman-Markey is cup half full legislation)!? ~ $2.5K
Edison International ~ $2K
Westinghouse Electric ~ $2K
Operating Engineers Union ~ $6K
PMA Lobbying Group (under investigation) ~ $2K
Microsoft Corp. ~ $1.5K
Contributions in 2010:
GE ~ $1K
Honeywell International ~ $1K
Operating Engineers Union ~ $10K
Leonard Lance:
There isn’t much information prior to Mr. Lance’s election in 2008, however, he currently sits on the Financial Services committee.
Contributions in 2010:
League of Conservation Voters ~ $250
Honeywell (believes in cap-and-trade) ~ $1K
Public Service Enterprise Group ~ $1K
National Education Association ~ $1K
Financial Institutions ~ $49.7K
Frank LoBiondo:
Contributions in 2008:
Public Service Enterprise Group ~ $6.5K
Honeywell International ~ $3.5K
Labor Unions ~ $235.8K
Sierra Club/League of Conservation Voters ~ $1.3K
Contributions in 2010:
Labor Unions ~ $53.2K
John McHugh:
Contributions in 2008:
Constellation Energy ~ $10.8K
Honeywell International ~ $10K
Operating Engineers Union ~ $10K
PMA Group ~ $10K
Electric Companies (heavily funded by them incl. Exelon, Edison, FirstEnergy, Progress Energy, etc.) ~ $34K
Environmental Services (MWH Americas) ~ $1K
Labor Unions ~ $133.5K
Contributions in 2010:
Operating Engineers Union ~ $10K
Honeywell International ~ $5K
Labor Unions ~ $11K
Dave Reichert:
Contributions in 2008:
It appears that Dave is an enviro-nut RINO. He was on the Space Committee and receives a lot of funding from Microsoft.
Microsoft ~ $48.2K
National Education Assn ~ $10K
Avista (support cap-and-trade) ~ $1.3K
Puget Sound Energy ~ $7.9K
Financial Institutions ~ $121.5K
Illinois Tool Works gave to Mark Kirk which is understandable but why also to a rep. from Washington state? ~ $2K?
Contributions in 2010:
GE ~ $1K
Honeywell International ~ $3K
Operating Engineers Union ~ $5K
Labor Unions ~ $4.5K
Chris Smith:
Contributions in 2008:
Operating Engineers Union ~ $10K
Laborers Union ~ $10K
National Education Assn ~ $3K
SEIU ~ $5K
Other Labor Unions ~ $92K
League of Conservation Voters ~ $250
Contributions in 2010:
Operating Engineers Union ~ $10K
Other Labor Unions ~ $13K
The Washington Examiner had a brief article on some of the campaign contributions that various members of the GOP 8 were a part of, many of which are already captures here – but as a source you can go here.
I believe there is a lot more investigation that will need to be done in order to fully grasp what these 8 were promised from Waxman and Pelosi, rather than just reviewing their campaign contributions. I also have suspicions regarding the New Jersey 3 as to where many of these green companies and technologies reside. New Jersey has its very own clean energy initiatives/policies for its state and a long list of companies who are involved.
I hope we can get to the bottom of it and find out what it takes to sell out your party, your constituents, but worst of all; your country.
