Printable View
I know of the generalities of this Cap & Trade Energy bill which barely pass the House a couple of days ago.
More importantly are the alleged results of such passage.
Becaue it barely passed in the House, doesn't this mean, it won't likely pass in the Senate.
If the Dems has 60 seats (correct me if I'm wrong) they could technically thwart a filibuster, correct? Correct me if I'm wrong.
And this is a assuming parties voted completely along party lines (which I doubt).
OK, more info, below.
The "reconiciliation" (fast track) procedure has been voted against, and it looks like the earliest vote in the Senate will com in the Fall, if then.
Hopefully the Senators will take their time and read the bill, and way all of the potential costs, and benefits.
Link: Senate won't fast track cap-and-trade - Washington TimesQuote:
Senate won't fast track cap-and-trade
By Stephen Dinan (Contact) | Thursday, April 2, 2009
In a strong vote Wednesday the Senate firmly rejected President Obama's plan to try to push through a carbon emissions cap-and-trade program through fast-track procedures, making clear that getting any bill done this year will be a struggle.
The Senate voted 67-31 to pass an amendment that says Congress should not try to force cap-and-trade through under the budget "reconciliation" process. While not binding on the final House-Senate agreement, the strong statement on a Republican-sponsored amendment does go a long way toward tying Congress' hands.
"It says the budget reconciliation process will not be used to pass climate change," said Sen. Mike Johanns, Nebraska Republican, who sponsored the amendment.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, who opposed the amendment, said there was no reason to tie Congress' hands when it comes to fighting global warming.
"Why would we want to start down this road, taking a legal Senate procedure off the table?" she said.
The reconciliation process allows major revenue items to pass under rules requiring only a majority vote, which would short-circuit senators' right to filibuster.
In his budget Mr. Obama had called for including cap-and-trade as part of reconciliation, though neither the House or Senate followed through in their blueprints. Still, Republicans feared that when the House and Senate negotiators get together to write a compromise budget they would add the language back in.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Wednesday's vote "slammed the door shut" for good.
The cap-and-trade vote was tough for many Democrats, torn between home-state concerns and their party base's wishes.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat, whose home state could be hard-hit by the economic effects of a cap-and-trade program, has opposed some earlier efforts on the issue. But on Wednesday he voted against Republicans' amendment, and afterwards went up to Mrs. Boxer on the floor and told her the news. She thanked him, but his vote was swamped by 26 Democrats who broke ranks to
Two Democrats, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, first voted against Republicans' amendment. But when it became clear it was going to pass with overwhelming support they switched.
I made mistake. The above article is from April. :rolleyes:
Here is a more recent article. I'm not sure if the one above is stil accurate (it may be).
Link: U.S. House passes cap-and-trade global warming bill, moves to Senate | Fresh LoafQuote:
U.S. House passes cap-and-trade global warming bill, moves to Senate
June 27, 2009 at 12:37 am by Thomas Wheatley in News
The U.S. House of Representatives today passed the Waxman-Markey bill, a piece of legislation aimed at curbing global warming through energy-efficiency standards, clean energy technologies and a cap-and-trade system.
And despite the bill’s good intentions, not everyone’s exactly thrilled with what it contains.
From the New York Times:
…the legislation, a patchwork of compromises, falls far short of what many European governments and environmentalists have said is needed to avert the worst effects of global warming. And it pitted liberal Democrats from the East and West Coasts against more conservative Democrats from areas dependent on coal for electricity and on heavy manufacturing for jobs.The final vote was 219-212. Here’s the roll call. Note that 44 Democrats voted against the legislation and eight Republicans voted for it — Joe Romm of ClimateProgress says that’s a sign the bill will face a tough fight next in the Senate, which is expected to consider the legislation after the July 4 holiday.
While some environmentalists enthusiastically supported the legislation, others, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, opposed it. Industry officials were split, with the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers opposing the bill and some of the nation’s biggest corporations, including Dow Chemical and Ford, backing it.
Georgia’s Congressional delegation was largely split on party lines. U.S. Reps. John Barrow, D-Augusta, and Jim Marshall, D-Macon, were the lone Democrats to vote against the legislation.
^ Why are Euro nations causing a fuss? This will spell doom and way higher costs for Americans -- higher prices for gas and electricity. And new jobs and a boosted economy? 555 Look at Spain.
To little fanfare this month, BP closed a solar-cell factory in Madrid, laying off 480 workers. But wait, aren't "green-collar" jobs the wave of the future -- the kind of employment that will only grow and "can't be outsourced," as President Obama likes to say?
Spain happens to be the country that the President often cites as his role model for the Green Jobs Revolution. It's also the source of an important new study that explains how expensive these jobs are -- and why Spain's renewable-energy business is a bubble waiting to burst. The study, released last month by researchers at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, uses data from the Spanish government and European Union to demonstrate that each job created in Spain's renewables industry costs as much as 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy.
The study's authors calculate that jobs in Spain's solar, wind and hydroelectric power industries were subsidized to the tune of more than €570,000 apiece from 2000 to 2008 -- a total exceeding €28.6 billion. And that figure only includes the extra cost to energy consumers of being forced by the government to buy renewable energy at prices several times higher than market rates for conventional power. The authors didn't calculate direct subsidies, such as grants to build solar farms, because the government doesn't even know how much money it has handed out to the renewables industry. But the direct-subsidies tally is at least €1.1 billion.
Some commentators have reported that Spain has lost 2.2 jobs for each job created by solar, wind or hydroelectric power producers. But the study instead is talking about opportunity cost -- the jobs that weren't created because resources were used inefficiently, or what the French economist Frédéric Bastiat meant by "what is seen and what is not seen."
Yet these "lost" jobs have a real impact, particularly when employment rolls are shrinking elsewhere. They're also politically pernicious, in that it's easier to point to a new green-collar worker than to the two or three people who remain unemployed because other jobs were crowded out.
What hasn't been reported in much detail from the Juan Carlos study is the way Spanish renewable-energy policy created an enormous investment bubble that may already be bursting. In many ways, this is the most important element of the report.
Since 2004, Spain's Socialist government has essentially guaranteed a huge return on any investment in solar, wind or hydro. It's done so by requiring electricity distributors to buy all renewable energy produced in the country, at prices that at times have been 10 times higher than market rates. This is known as a "feed-in price," and it has cost Spanish energy customers an extra €28.6 billion this decade.
Green Joblessness - WSJ.com
I guess that the most amazing part of this is that No One read the bill before it was passed...There was not even a copy of the bill available...Pelosi rammed this one home...But I am sure that the Senate, led by Senator Imhofe from the great state of Oklahoma(Boomer Sooner) will make sure that everyone understands the dire implications of the bill and it will go down to defeat..
^ Errm, that was the Stimulus Bill for sure, but I know Boehner read it and he also read out in the House the 300-page fekin amendment that the libbies slapped on at the last minute.
was he crying?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Just in case a few of our fine legislators and members have yet to read it, TD provides this as a community service.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454
^ hehe. I guess everyone has time to read that.
I'm about half way through. Might even have an opinion to share when done. Course we could all simply let others of our like political feather read and "interpret" for us as seems to be the norm in America these days.:mid:
^ I'm most interested in the 300 pages the Dems tacked on at the last minute, so hurry it up, wouldya? :tieme::)
From what I heard, the Dems want green restrictions on their trading partners or they won't allow the US to play with them anymo.
Congress will be informed of non compliance via an audit of greenhouse gas emission efforts by other countries. Specifically China and India. Would then be up to Congress to decide what, if anything to do regarding trade restrictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
Given this is a "global" issue, I understand the need to hold other countries accountable but would be much better to have an international set of standards rather than using US standards. China and India have objected to strict standards being placed upon them so expect they will object to having to comply with standards as set forth in this bill.
"SEC. 3. INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION.
The Administrator, in consultation with the Department of State and the United States Trade Representative, shall annually prepare and certify a report to the Congress regarding whether China and India have adopted greenhouse gas emissions standards at least as strict as those standards required under this Act. If the Administrator determines that China and India have not adopted greenhouse gas emissions standards at least as stringent as those set forth in this Act, the Administrator shall notify each Member of Congress of his determination, and shall release his determination to the media."
^ That's meddling, and especially antagonistic to single out China and India. I envision US countries pulliing up roots and finding other countries to operate from. The mfg industry will never return to the US, because workers demand union wages and overall costs are higher, so product prices are too.
Meddling, I would agree. This why an international standard is needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
Singling out China and India is based more on the fact they emit such a large percentage of greenhouse gas. If the rest of the world made significant reduction and China and India did not, effort would be futile. Reckon there will be a cost to businesses in the short run to comply so if US goes full on and China doesn't will put US companies at a cost disadvantage.
Have read most of the bill and think it should not be passed in it's present form.
It is too far reaching and needs to be pared down to see if the measures really work in reducing carbon emissions.
Impossible to predict economic impact positive or negative because analysis is predicated upon predicting 40 years out.
Many of the measures will make the US energy independent which is a good goal but there are alternatives.
Slim Pickens idea of using the vast US natural gas reserves as a fuel source has some merit but should not be consider a complete solution.
Should it be passed by the Senate in it's current form? I vote no. Will it be? Wait and see!
Any updates on this Cap & Trade?
I'll google shortly.
I haven't heard a word on it. Health Plan taking center stage, now.
I expect Cap & Trade to die in the Senate, if it hasn't already.
^ Nope. Heard nada.
Again, I tried to find any recent info.
It's D.O.A. for sure, IMO.
Southeastern states oppose, farmers oppose, and others.
I found this. Little current info. I cannot find current info.
This bill was a mistake to begin with, and it seems it was introduced to committee, and sent for a vote waaaay too quckly.
And remember: Obama tried to fast track it.
Cap And Trade Bill 2009 HR 2454 Passed, So What Does That Mean? | NowPublic News Coverage
The bill will never get through the Senate as is. Far too many unknowns for my liking. Another piece of legislation which misses the objective by trying to please everyone. Organizations who support and oppose the bill very odd.
Even environmental orgs are not aligned on support of the bill.
Opposing the bill - Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network
Supporting the bill - National Audubon Society, Environment America
Nothing happening since bill passed House (June) in moving forward in the Senate.
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)