What Comes With Cap And Trade?
Posted: Thursday, October 29, 2009
by Joel Hendon
http://hebronics.org/index.html
For those who think Cap and Trade means swapping baseball head gear, listen up. The entire Cap and Trade subject is that of reducing emissions into the atmosphere, mainly of CO2, but will include pollutants also. CO2 is the fall guy, or scape goat for Al Gore and the U.N. goal of securing a world wide taxation, mostly from the U.S. and the start of more global power for them. But the bad part is that we, the U.S. taxpayers are going to have to foot the major part of the bill, voluntarily.
The theory of the bill will severely restrict any CO2 producing industry who will be restricted far below their normal output. So they can only produce less, OR, they can buy more allotment from any group which has some left over after their production is met. Or pay the government a heavy penalty. Now, this will severely restrict the production of coal, gasoline, fuel oil, or any other such energy material which produces an abundance of CO2.
Some of the hardest hit industries will be transportation, electricity production, utilities, and the like. Now, stop and think what this means. Not only will the cost of shipping and other transportation increase tremendously, but the cost to the average consumer who will pay for it, in higher travel fares, higher gasoline prices and taxes. In addition to this, (still in the field of transportation costs) the cost of everything which has to move from manufacturer to retailer, will increase proportionately.
Here is a couple of paragraphs from an article by two U.S. Senators explaining this better than I can:
"The goal of this climate-change legislation is actually to increase the price of traditional forms of carbon-based energy such as coal, gas and oil so that consumers will respond by using less of it. Some lawmakers call this "setting the price on carbon." Economists refer to this kind of policy as a price signal. But the bottom line is that the price of energy will go up. Ultimately, all Americans will pay directly or indirectly for the higher fuel prices the cap-and-trade legislation will cause.
"Americans travel more than 200 million vehicle miles each month, and annually we spend nearly $1.2 trillion on gasoline and oil. The average household spends 5 percent of its annual budget on fuel. For many, gasoline is a mandatory expense. And this legislation disproportionately hits middle and lower income households that tend to have longer commutes to work and must drive in order to work. These families will be hit especially hard by the projected $1 per gallon increase for the additional gas tax the cap-and-trade legislation will bring." (Democrats' hidden gas tax: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Christopher S. Bond )
Now, for those who can afford their gasoline, or other traveling expense, to double (and that is conservative), perhaps this isn't so bad. But for the working middle and lower income groups, it will turn into a nightmare. I know of people now whose fuel expenses, mainly from getting to and from work, reach levels of over $150 per month. There are those whose expenses are more.
Then we arrive at the increased costs of, say, groceries. Lettuce, produced mainly in California, will probably increase by 50%. And that is just a measly sample. It is impossible to forecast what the final costs would be but it is definitely far reaching.
If you would like to read the article by the two Senators shown above, you may find it here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/21/democrats-hidden-gas-tax/
This Article has been viewed 711 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsThanks Joel. It's important as more and more scientists are abandoning the notion of anthropogenic global warming. No one has yet to remotely prove that an increase in CO2 does or will cause warming beyond normal background "noise."In fact, the ice core data chart that Al Gore likes to show has proven the converse upon close inspection. When one blows up the scale, one finds that CO2 levels follow temperature fluctuations. That is, historical CO2 levels are dependent on temperature levels and not the other way around.At worst case, we know that cap and trade legislation will bring havoc but only suspect that CO2 causes problems. As it is, these silly biofuels initiatives are driving up the cost of foods. Only government can take money from it's citizens and give it to a particular industry that in turn costs those very citizens more to eat. Yeesh!Stephen Fischer, Professional Geologist.Thank you kindly Stephen, for your input and correct information.
What an eye-opener, Joel. Does this mean fewer trips for Al Gore? Not likely!I think not Ken, thanks for reading and commenting. I imagine Al is considering buying another fuel guzzling jet.
We all need to write our Senators in Washington and overwhelm them with opposition to this. I am very concerned about what this is going to do to us. One of my Senators, Barbara Boxer, is heading up the committee for this bill and she is convinced that we need to suffer this pain to make the switch in energy technology. She has no concern for how it will further damage our economy and lower everyone's standard of living significantly.Thanks for commenting Jim, I agree with you. I do contact mine about twice per month or more, expressing my disapproval of certain bills and commending them for what they have done. I'm blessed with some good ones.
Well presented argument Joel, and I give it five stars, but I respectfully disagree 100%. You see, I am old enough to remember the red steel mill dust all over our rented house in Cleveland, and my coughing, and the smell, especially the smell, when I was five years old. I remember the Cuyahoga River catching on fire because of the pollution from the industries running raw directly into the river, unregulated. And I remember not being able to see the fifth story of buildings in LA back in the 60's because of the yellow smog that burnt my eyes. Do you really think that big business, out of the goodness of their hearts ever did anything about those things. No, it took government of the people, which I am very proud of, to stop the money at all costs mentality. I prefer health over wealth, spirituality over materialism. Just my humble opinion. But well written article.Hi E. Ray, thanks for commenting. Listen, I'm with you on pollution. But this bill coming up isn't about pollution. CO2 is a gas but not a pollutant. The only charge they have against it is they say it holds heat. Water vapor holds much more and there is heaps more of it than CO2. CO2 is actually good for the atmosphere. It is taking a bum rap. Thanks for your comment.Pollutants do not actually stay in the air. A heavy rain will clean most of it out. I bet you don't see the mess now that you saw way back. I'm 79 and I remember when the steel mill near here polluted the air something fierce. But it has moved overseas now.Good distinction, Joel, that C02 is not a pollutant. It seems that the government may be going just too far with this bill. There is already so much regulation of car emmissions, air quality, etc. "Cap and tax" seems to go too far in the direction of overburden on businesses and consumers.
Hi Joel,Cap and trade may be expensive, but the alternative is pretty expensive too: health care for increased pollution-caused diseases, including cancer, emphysema, asthma, and heart disease.If everyone who complains about Cap and Trade would come up with a better idea to slow down air pollution, that would be great. In the meantime, what are we going to do about global warming? We are fast approaching the point of no return on this planet. I don't care about my life and its quality anymore, but I sure as heck care about my daughters' and my grandchildren's. What kind of hell are we leaving them?Also, I would have you read the Old Philosopher/Robert Bregman's article on the same subject, with an opposing viewpoint (http://searchwarp.com/swa542029-Letter-I-Sent-To-My-Two-Maine-Senators.htm)Thanks for your articles on SearchWarp,DebiHi Debi, thanks for your comment. But, you are confusing pollution with what I am arguing about. CO2 cannot be considered a pollutant since it is a naturally occurring element of our atmosphere. Every breath we take, we exhale CO2. I am against pollutants that mess up the lower atmosphere, the air we breathe and so on. But, believe it or not, they have made remarkable advances in those areas already.The farce that man-made CO2 is causing the global warming has no basis whatsoever. The Cap & Trade bill is aimed at nothing more than the global warming problem. They like to call it the anti-pollution law to get public support.
Joel, I really enjoy your writing. I like your quote and link to the Washington Times article. The reference adds credibility to your article. Thank you for discussing this important issue.Thank you Deana for reading and commenting. It helps make my day.
Thanks for this article. Many do not know much about this topic. In my mind and from related research about free energy, we do not need oil and as more become aware of this and they are forced to start a transition as more people use better and more environmentally effecient ways to get around they need something that will still generate lot's of money and this is what they've come up with. Essentially you are being taxed for taking a breath. What has this world come to? Thanks again for the article.Thank you for reading and commenting, Marisa.
I'm glad you have shared this information with us, Joel. I would have been the first person to feel as if "Cap and Trade" was indeed soemthing dealing with sports. Thanks for enlightening me.Thank you for reading and commenting Royae.
Thank you Tony for reading and the compliment. It just earned you another fan! Welcome to Searchwarp.
Joel, thank you for writing this article. And as always, it is the taxpayers who would foot the bill.Thanks Nenita, for reading and commenting
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.