House passes enormous global scamming tax hikes

Note: See update below for latest on the House passing this pile of garbage.

It has been called the largest tax increase in history and the House of Representatives is set to pass it soon, with President Obama’s full support. It is called the “cap and trade” legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global warming hoax, and you will pay through the nose for it.

Report from the Examiner:

House set to pass historic Climate Change bill. After weeks of compromise Obama announced the House is set to pass the Climate Change bill called Waxman-Markey. The key compromise delays regulation of farms for 5 years and gives the regulatory powers to the Agriculture Department not EPA. Midwestern farm states where concerned about EPA’s analysis of ethanol production which questions its true role in carbon reduction when including indirect upstream and transportation costs.

The bill is expected to add $10 per month to the average utility bill, costing the average U.S. household between $80 and $175 per year, The bill is expected to reduce imported petroleum from nearly 900 million barrels per to year in 2007 around 500 or 600 million barrels per day in 2030. The specific numbers are highly debatable. But most Americans agree action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is required soon. Support for Climate Change action falls off sharply among households earning less than $50,000 per year. Wealthier suburbanites support the bill.

The bill called a carbon cap and trade program reduces the amount of carbon allowed to be emitted by industry over time. A key compromise in the bill to coal states is giving nearly 85% of the carbon credits for free. A similar approach in Europe in 2005 has failed to reduce carbon emissions there. The carbon market remains weak during the Great Recession as economic output has declined and not reducing any carbon. The European approach to giving away its carbon credits is seen as a major flaw in the proposed U. S. system. By giving away the carbon allowances, industry is not as quickly stimulated to reduce carbon emissions.

The goal is to reduce carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and 85% by 2050. The price of carbon is expected to rise over time as the amount of carbon allowed to be released is reduced. Given the recent Wall Street scandals, confidence in a carbon cap and trade program based on a Wall Street model are fraught with uncertainty. Another key compromise was allowing “offsets” that account to reforestation and prevention of deforestation, highly questionable and difficult to calculate the true emissions reduction. But as Bismark said “politics is the art of the possible”. While fraught with uncertainty and amid great compromise, it looks like the U.S. will have a carbon reduction plan to bring to the Copenhagen Protocol in December.

The Wall Street Journal discusses it further:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman’s many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership’s solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman’s co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO’s analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to “offset” their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap.”

More from the WSJ on why this is being pushed through so quickly, perhaps because the public is starting to catch on to the global warming hoax:

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country’s new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)

The collapse of the “consensus” has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth’s temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

The truth has been pouring out, slowly but surely. Politicians like Al Gore cannot control all the information in the day and age we live in which means voices of reason and intelligence on the “global warming” issue are coming forward to debunk it. Reasonable evidence points to global warming being a natural cycle, not man made in any way, nor can we change it if we wanted to.

The legislation before congress is simply more ways of controlling and taxing the population at the behest of liberal special interest groups.

John Stossel of ABC News has been one voice trying to cut through the political garbage:

The debate isn’t closed, it hasn’t even begun because the climate change zealots don’t want their assertions to be challenged since they cannot stand up to scrutiny. The evidence against man-made global warming is piling high yet congress is going to pass some sham legislation for a non-existent hoax and we’re all going to pay more for it.

This is the time to call your legislator and demand they vote not against this wealth grab by the government. These are the same politicians who preach global warming yet do not change their own habits of taking jets everywhere they go, same old liberal hypocrisy. Surprise, surprise.


Thanks to 8 Republicans who chose to betray their country, this piece of garbage passed the house 219 to 212 with 44 Democrats voting against it as well.

Here are the offenders:

For the record, here are the Democrats who voted “No”:

Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Donnelly (IN)
Edwards (TX)
Herseth Sandlin
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Wilson (OH)

Hopefully this will die in the Senate despite Obama’s pleas that it be passed before America has a chance to examine this farce.

The best quote about this whole issue:

Never have so few stolen so much from so many to achieve so little.

It is a shame that the government is passing legislation based on junk science aimed at increasing taxes and killing economic growth in the energy sector. The carbon credit market is the biggest sham there ever was and people like Al Gore will be profiting dearly from it as companies barter their carbon credits to stay in business, it’s insane.

The heat is now on the Senate to put this to bed and not impose junk-science legislation on the American people thieving more of our wealth.