Cap-and-trade for $1 a day

This has NO chance. The Republican minions have been trained to protect big oil by repeating the BS "Cap and Tax" phrase.

And as usual, the Wingnuts have no idea what the hell they're talking about, but what their mindless chanting does for the honcho's of the GOP is it continues to protect the Big Oil oligrachy and keep us as a country from moving on to alternative energy sources.

We need to get off of oil period. The spill in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by domestic oil. Also we need to put an end to the Republican lie that American oil production could equal American oil consumption if only those big bad environmentalists would let us drill in ANWR and the Gulf of Mexico. American oil production peaked in 1973(?) and decreased every year since then, because all of the easy-to-extract oil was already gone. As long as Americans believe that lie, Republicans will win the energy debate.

Republicans' Climate Change Talking Points Document Revealed

"We already know that many Republicans are vehemently opposed to fighting climate change with legislation. We also know the party has charged that the Democrat's current bill would drastically raise costs for the average American family. What we didn't know is that there's a method to the madness—who knew? But it's true: the Republicans have spilled the list of climate change talking points the party distributes to its members—can you guess what's on it? "

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/republicans-climate-change-talking-points.php

Even if we were to believe these numbers (which sound like Fantasy Land) they only address household energy. What about everything else? Besides manufacturing and transportation, everything has petroleum in it.

This will cost a fortune. Obama and co. must know this, therefore this is done on purpose. If you're not scared, you're not paying attention.

If the government says $1 a day - run for your lives.

Cap and trade is (was) a Republican idea. The idea was to use market forces to reduce pollution. George H.W.Bush signed into law the first cap and trade program. Sooooo, the Repugs were for it before they were against it?

Cap and trade was used to reduce acid rain precursor emissions in the 1990s as a result of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, signed by REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT George HW Bush. All industry estimates re: costs and economic calamity were completely wrong. Not even close. What happened? The *free market* worked! Perfectly. Cap and trade resulted in substantial emission reductions. While the economy *grew* at a substantial pace through the decade. The government estimates re: cap and trade were spot on. Industry (and Republican) estimates were not even in the ball park. It turned out to be a win/win/win: for the environment, the economy and industry.

It's laughable that the Wingnutters are against the free market from doing what it did so well in the 1990s! Leave it to the Repug/Teabaggers to hate America so much that they are against something that is a positive for all. LOL!

Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed this: There is virtually no conversation happening here.
.
One half or more of a typical thread is filled by Trollboy using different post names (or stealing other people's as a grade school prank). He says nothing new or original. He responds to nobody honestly or civilly.
.
The remainder is filled by half-a-dozen or so regulars, mostly talking to themselves, only sporadically exchanging an occasional insult.
.
Now and then ornery or John W will show up and attempt an exchange of ideas in good faith. Unfortunately, that's only 2 people and they don't stop in regularly.
.
Ya call that a blog?
.
PS to Trollboy:
I'll save you the trouble and type out your usual canned witticism for you-- "Why don't you leave, and don't let the door hit you in the arse, hahaha"...[drool]!!!
.
I'm thinking about it.
.

OH SURE, $1 a day. Have they even read the healthcare bill yet? It was all lies about saving money. What the government wants is more government. We need to get off of big government. Who do you think gets the big payoffs from big oil? Politicians. And, if you think that democrats don't take lots of money from big oil you need to wash the fairy dust out of your eyes. I suppose you still believe that Obama is the messiah too.

Just sayin, HHH, John E, and all his other names is a sad, sad person. Just ignore him. You can't really have a conversation on this blog because whoever is "operating it" will sometimes take days to post comments and will censor comments that they don't like, but will allow (make sure?) nutjobs like HHH to post the same insulting drivel day after day.

Why don't they just raise the income tax on the wealthy, it's the same damn thing.

If Cap-n-Trade passes look for the Chicago Climate Exchnage to make a killing. Go see who will make a killing from this - democratic contributor - Goldman Sachs, among others.

"The EPA's analysis showed American's household energy costs would rise an average of $79-$146 annually through 2050." Let's say between electricity, natgas, and gasoline, a household pays $3,000 today for these costs. That means these costs will increase $112 annually (if you believe these estimates - we've seen how bad they were for healthcare). The American public will pay nearly $7500 per year by 2050.

Ask that family making $20,000 if they can afford an additional $100 on their energy bill? The dems and their regressive taxes.

JohnEE The Troll Boy has been doing this forever. He posts and posts until his little hands ache, mom tells him his pot pies are ready and he has to turn off his notebook. Mark Silva must have slapped him down because he went with the H3 handle for a while, but once Silva bailed the troll has been free to pull names out of his phone book. He's pathetic.

Okay.
.
Democrats have me confused, and it appears that at least some of them are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
.
In January of 2008, Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:
.
“When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, you know, under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily SKYROCKET. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.” (Emphasis in caps added.)
See http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-vows-electricity-rates-would-necessarily-skyrocket-under-his-plan/
.
And now we read that: “the administration released an analysis of a Senate cap-and-trade bill showing such a system would cost LESS THAN $1 A DAY IN HIGHER household energy costs.” (Emphasis in caps added.)
.
And then the two senators who authored the bill issued a joint statement, claiming: “The American Power Act WILL DECREASE ENERGY BILLS FOR FAMILIES and protect consumers while offering the most effective cost containment measures of any previous climate legislation …" (Emphasis in caps added.)
.
All three statements cannot be simultaneously true, and the last two in particular are entirely irreconcilable. The same bill cannot both increase household energy costs as the administration says, and decrease energy bills for families as the senators say. So who is lying and why?
.
And then there’s the question left open by Obama’s 2008 statement to the Chron. How does the new bill differ in detail from Barack Obama’s 2008 ‘plan’ so that it doesn’t make energy prices skyrocket? Is it phased in over a period of time to stretch out the cost of retrofitting? (That’s the only way it could work without throwing us all back to the Stone Age anyway.) Even if that’s true, how can anyone predict the average impact of the cost to consumers given that needed retrofitting (and the resulting cost spreading) will differ greatly from location to location in the country? (Take my word for it: Technology used for power generation differs greatly between utility companies. Duke Power in North Carolina, for instance, uses substantially more coal in electricity production than, say, Empire District Electric in Missouri.)
.
I am skeptical and perhaps a bit cynical too. Those who wrote the economic analysis of the American Power Act admit that they can’t calculate a lot of the costs or benefits of the bill. If they are unsure, I can’t imagine why the White House or the senators are so sure of themselves. We’ve been given the mushroom treatment by Congress way too many times to take them at their word. Better answers need to be forthcoming before they can sell the plan to their critics.
.
@ Just sayin'
.
I’m sorry I don’t show up here very often. I have a job trying to keep the California prison population from growing, and business has been rather brisk lately. Like you, I wonder where some of the quicker witted old-timers have gone.

@Free to Watch,
Excellent point. The posting times here are just awful. That does put a damper on the back-and-forth
.
@John W,
Excellent point about (like most of us) having a job that comes B4 this blog. It's the Swamp's misfortune that JohnEHHHTrollboy is unemployable.
.
Excellent point also about Cap & Trade. It always seemed like a shellgame to me and a bandaid on a shotgun wound even if it were workable (if I may mix metaphors.)
.
Nobody in our political leadership has been proposing serious energy policy, not for as long as the words 'energy' and 'crisis' have been put together in '73 or '74.
There is no honest, real effort by those who lead us to wean this society from the overuse of oil. Nice speeches, catchy slogans, no action. We can't stop using oil altogether, so we'd damn well better start using it wisely.
.
It is incumbent upon the President and the Democratic party (as the powers that be) to draft legislation to give conservation, recycling and efficiency the force of law. I'd be overjoyed to see them put half the effort into that that they put into health care reform.
.
Just two ideas:
1) Rather than something like a Federal gas tax to discourage consumption (and burden the poor and middle incomers) do federal licensing for vehicles based upon weight, HP and fuel efficiency. So if some rich fool wants to drive a monster pickup to the grocery store and office s/he can pay for the damage they do and the funds would go to the commonweal. Obviously, such a law would have to be drafted in a way as to not adversely effect trades people, farmers etc.
2) Another, start a serious push to biofuels from switchgrass and waste, (NOT food crops). Currently favored cornbased ethanol is both cost-ineffective and filthy to produce and burn. Ethanol from waste cellulose, however, is a workable idea. To date, unfortunately, biofuels remain nothing more than a bulletpoint for speeches.

We have technology now that would lower our dependence fossil fuels. And the most promising ones are never mentioned by this administration. Two examples are nuclear energy and small vertical axis wind turbines for the home. Something else that really ticks me off is why have the automobile manufacturers not brought over the high mileage low polluting diesel engines that they have been selling overseas for decades. I believe this was one of the worst speeches Obama has given so far. And to throw in his little jab at getting his Tax And Cap bill pass was an insult. He really laid out no specifications for anything long-term beyond the Gulf of Mexico.

Just Sayin, I am all for energy that works and is affordable. Talk about something that would boost the economy: cheap energy. The only one that makes sense is nuclear. Solar is too expensive, wind has an environment impact that those that push it won't talk about: IT KILLS BIRDS. It's estimated that windmills kill up to 300,000 bird a year. And wind farms take us a lot of land and are ugly.

In any case, having the government take MORE MONEY out of the economy will NOT solve anything, except big government's ravishing hunger for more power and more money.

Government can't even organize the cleanup in the Gulf. Residents are reporting delays of a week before all the paper work is complete and the bureaucrats can make a more to stop approaching oil. By that time, it's too late. Government is the problem, not the answer.

Why shouldn't the EPA be perfectly capable of regulating CO2 (what we exhale) as a pollutant without bankrupting business and forcing us to stop breathing?

Oops, nevermind:

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=122572

Forgot to mention Terry, Don F, um, even Paulo when he's not name calling...yes, memory is slowly coming back....

Then, again, there are a few nasty ones...

You know who you are....