If you look at page 180 of the 451-page monster bailout bill that easily passed the Senate yesterday (PDF here), you will see that it includes at Section 116 language about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide.” It also provides, at Section 117, for a “carbon audit of the tax code.”
What could a provision about the tax treatment of “industrial source carbon dioxide” and another provision about doing a “carbon audit” of the tax code possibly have to do with restoring confidence in Wall Street’s troubled credit and banking markets?
The answer: NOTHING.
This appears to be an attempt by global warming alarmists to lay the foundation for a carbon tax in the middle of another crisis, hoping nobody will notice.
Call your congressman now! More at Planet Gore
UPDATE FROM CAPITAL RESEARCH:
Apparently the bill with the carbon provisions existed already and was passed by the Senate. So, the Senate used the bill as a vehicle for advancing the bailout package. They couldn’t under the Constitution initiate a spending bill in the Senate, so they had to amend one that was already passed by the House. Nonetheless, what was so urgent about the carbon provisions that they had to go with the bailout bill? Who decided which bill to use as the vehicle? Why not pick a non-controversial bill? My guess would be that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the call but it’s just a guess.
An expert offers a better explanation of one of the carbon-related provisions that is in the Bailout 2.0 bill.
According to this wizard of Wall Street, one provision provides preferential tax treatment for publicly-traded partnerships when they trade so-called carbon offsets. It was reportedly already passed in another bill: What’s so urgent about that tax provision that it absolutely had to go into another bill that aims to deal with a financial emergency? So, you can see it’s a little more complex than explained above. However, it’s still bad because it gives legitimacy to these strange indulgences known as carbon offsets and provides a tax incentive for trading them.
I am also informed by this source that Henry Paulson did not push to insert these two carbon-related provisions, but he certainly didn’t object to them, and his track record strongly suggests he would support them. When he ran Goldman Sachs, Paulson released a statement specifically endorsing carbon trading. As the Washington Post reported (June 1, 2006) reported: Last year under Paulson’s direction, Goldman Sachs issued an eight-page position paper on environmental policy, saying it accepts a scientific consensus, led by United Nations climate experts, that global warming poses one of the greatest threats this century.
Like Bush, the Goldman Sachs statement endorsed a market for businesses to buy and sell rights to emit greenhouse gases, saying it will spur technology advances by companies “that lead to a less carbon-intensive economy.” But, it added, “Voluntary action alone cannot solve the climate change problem,” a position contrary to the Bush administration’s view.
Source: Capital Research
The text of the provision on page 180 of the bill (PDF here) is in full below:
Lines 1-4
SEC. 116. CERTAIN INCOME AND GAINS RELATING TO IN
DUSTRIAL SOURCE CARBON DIOXIDE TREATED AS QUALIFYING INCOME FOR PUBLICLY TRADED PARTNERSHIPS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section
6 7704(d)(1) (defining qualifying income) is amended by in7
serting ‘‘or industrial source carbon dioxide’’ after ‘‘tim8
ber)’’.
9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
10 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment
11 of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
12 SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.
13 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall
14 enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
15 Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Inter16
nal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and
17 specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on car18
bon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate
19 the magnitude of those effects.
20 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date
21 of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of
22 Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the
23 results of study authorized under this section.
24 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
25 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
26 $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
I posted it in the comments before – Henry Paulson, the secretary of the Treasury is an AGW nut.
Classic move by the Alarmist…talk about 3 card Monty… “Quick!!…Look over there!!…The market’s crashing!!!…(and you won’t even notice me slipping this little teencyweeency provision in this important bill over HERE, heh heh heh).
I posted on another blog that I wasn’t sure which was more offensive, the inclusion of carbon credits or the $6M for wooden arrows.
You just can’t make this up.
Jim
The line item veto is a concept that’s way overdue. This is just nonsense. The legal precedent for taxing CO2 starts here. Sheesh.
Oh… FIRST!
And the democrats are wondering why the only true conservatives in Washington (the house republicans) would never vote for the bailout.
It must be frustrating to be a conservative in Washington.
Fasten your seat belts and hang onto your wallets — the ride’s about to get bumpy.
Here are extracts inserting CO2 sequestration and tax credits into this emergency bill without debate.
O:\AYO\AYO08C32.xml
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—110th Cong., 2d Sess.
H. R. 1424
Subtitle B—Carbon Mitigation and Coal Provisions
Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.
Sec. 116. Certain income and gains relating to industrial source carbon dioxide treated as qualifying income for publicly traded partnerships.
Sec. 117. Carbon audit of the tax code.
(3) CAPTURE AND SEQUESTRATION OF CARBON
16 DIOXIDE EMISSIONS REQUIREMENT.—
17 (A) IN GENERAL.—Section 48A(e)(1) is
18 amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub
19 paragraph (E), by striking the period at the
20 end of subparagraph (F) and inserting ‘‘; and’’,
21 and by adding at the end the following new sub
22 paragraph:
23 ‘‘(G) in the case of any project the applica
24 tion for which is submitted during the period
25 described in subsection (d)(2)(A)(ii), the project
157
1 includes equipment which separates and seques
2 ters at least 65 percent (70 percent in the case
3 of an application for reallocated credits under
4 subsection (d)(4)) of such project’s total carbon
5 dioxide emissions.’’.
6 (B) HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR PROJECTS
7 WHICH SEQUESTER CARBON DIOXIDE EMIS
8 SIONS.—Section 48A(e)(3) is amended by strik
9 ing ‘‘and’’ at the end of subparagraph (A)(iii),
10 by striking the period at the end of subpara
11 graph (B)(iii) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by
12 adding at the end the following new subpara
13 graph:
14 ‘‘(C) give highest priority to projects with
15 the greatest separation and sequestration per
16 centage of total carbon dioxide emissions.’’.
17 (C) RECAPTURE OF CREDIT FOR FAILURE
18 TO SEQUESTER.—Section 48A is amended by
19 adding at the end the following new subsection:
20 ‘‘(i) RECAPTURE OF CREDIT FOR FAILURE TO SE
21 QUESTER.—The Secretary shall provide for recapturing
22 the benefit of any credit allowable under subsection (a)
23 with respect to any project which fails to attain or main
24 tain the separation and sequestration requirements of sub
25 section (e)(1)(G).’’.
17 SEC. 112. EXPANSION AND MODIFICATION OF COAL GASIFI
18 CATION INVESTMENT CREDIT.
19 (a) MODIFICATION OF CREDIT AMOUNT.—Section
20 48B(a) is amended by inserting ‘‘(30 percent in the case
21 of credits allocated under subsection (d)(1)(B))’’ after ‘‘20
22 percent’’.
23 (b) EXPANSION OF AGGREGATE CREDITS.—Section
24 48B(d)(1) is amended by striking ‘‘shall not exceed
160
1 $350,000,000’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘shall
2 not exceed—
3 ‘‘(A) $350,000,000, plus
4 ‘‘(B) $250,000,000 for qualifying gasifi
5 cation projects that include equipment which
6 separates and sequesters at least 75 percent of
7 such project’s total carbon dioxide emissions.’’.
8 (c) RECAPTURE OF CREDIT FOR FAILURE TO SE
9 QUESTER.—Section 48B is amended by adding at the end
10 the following new subsection:
11 ‘‘(f) RECAPTURE OF CREDIT FOR FAILURE TO SE
12 QUESTER.—The Secretary shall provide for recapturing
13 the benefit of any credit allowable under subsection (a)
14 with respect to any project which fails to attain or main
15 tain the separation and sequestration requirements for
16 such project under subsection (d)(1).’’.
161
1 ‘‘(B) give high priority to applicant partici
2 pants who have a research partnership with an
3 eligible educational institution (as defined in
4 section 529(e)(5)).’’.
19 SEC. 115. TAX CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRA20
TION.
21 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart D of part IV of sub22
chapter A of chapter 1 (relating to business credits) is
23 amended by adding at the end the following new section:
175
O:\AYO\AYO08C32.xml S.L.C.
1 ‘‘SEC. 45Q. CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION.
2 ‘‘(a) GENERAL RULE.—For purposes of section 38,
3 the carbon dioxide sequestration credit for any taxable
4 year is an amount equal to the sum of—
5 ‘‘(1) $20 per metric ton of qualified carbon di6
oxide which is—
7 ‘‘(A) captured by the taxpayer at a quali8
fied facility, and
9 ‘‘(B) disposed of by the taxpayer in secure
10 geological storage, and
11 ‘‘(2) $10 per metric ton of qualified carbon di12
oxide which is—
13 ‘‘(A) captured by the taxpayer at a quali14
fied facility, and
15 ‘‘(B) used by the taxpayer as a tertiary
16 injectant in a qualified enhanced oil or natural
17 gas recovery project.
18 ‘‘(b) QUALIFIED CARBON DIOXIDE.—For purposes of
19 this section—
20 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified carbon
21 dioxide’ means carbon dioxide captured from an in22
dustrial source which—
23 ‘‘(A) would otherwise be released into the
24 atmosphere as industrial emission of green25
house gas, and
176
O:\AYO\AYO08C32.xml S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(B) is measured at the source of capture
2 and verified at the point of disposal or injec3
tion.
4 ‘‘(2) RECYCLED CARBON DIOXIDE.—The term
5 ‘qualified carbon dioxide’ includes the initial deposit
6 of captured carbon dioxide used as a tertiary
7 injectant. Such term does not include carbon dioxide
8 that is re-captured, recycled, and re-injected as part
9 of the enhanced oil and natural gas recovery process.
10 ‘‘(c) QUALIFIED FACILITY.—For purposes of this
11 section, the term ‘qualified facility’ means any industrial
12 facility—
13 ‘‘(1) which is owned by the taxpayer,
14 ‘‘(2) at which carbon capture equipment is
15 placed in service, and
16 ‘‘(3) which captures not less than 500,000 met
17 ric tons of carbon dioxide during the taxable year.
18 ‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULES AND OTHER DEFINITIONS.—
19 For purposes of this section—
20 ‘‘(1) ONLY CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURED AND
21 DISPOSED OF OR USED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES
22 TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.—The credit under this sec
23 tion shall apply only with respect to qualified carbon
24 dioxide the capture and disposal or use of which is
25 within—
177
O:\AYO\AYO08C32.xml S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(A) the United States (within the mean
2 ing of section 638(1)), or
3 ‘‘(B) a possession of the United States
4 (within the meaning of section 638(2)).
5 ‘‘(2) SECURE GEOLOGICAL STORAGE.—The Sec
6 retary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
7 Environmental Protection Agency, shall establish
8 regulations for determining adequate security meas
9 ures for the geological storage of carbon dioxide
10 under subsection (a)(1)(B) such that the carbon di
11 oxide does not escape into the atmosphere. Such
12 term shall include storage at deep saline formations
13 and unminable coal seems under such conditions as
14 the Secretary may determine under such regulations.
18 ‘‘(4) QUALIFIED ENHANCED OIL OR NATURAL
19 GAS RECOVERY PROJECT.—The term ‘qualified en20
hanced oil or natural gas recovery project’ has the
21 meaning given the term ‘qualified enhanced oil re
22 covery project’ by section 43(c)(2), by substituting
23 ‘crude oil or natural gas’ for ‘crude oil’ in subpara
24 graph (A)(i) thereof.
178
1 ‘‘(5) CREDIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO TAXPAYER.—
2 Any credit under this section shall be attributable to
3 the person that captures and physically or contrac
4 tually ensures the disposal of or the use as a tertiary
5 injectant of the qualified carbon dioxide, except to
6 the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the
7 Secretary.
8 ‘‘(6) RECAPTURE.—The Secretary shall, by reg
9 ulations, provide for recapturing the benefit of any
10 credit allowable under subsection (a) with respect to
11 any qualified carbon dioxide which ceases to be cap
12 tured, disposed of, or used as a tertiary injectant in
13 a manner consistent with the requirements of this
14 section.
15 ‘‘(3) TERTIARY INJECTANT.—The term ‘ter
16 tiary injectant’ has the same meaning as when used
17 within section 193(b)(1).
179
O:\AYO\AYO08C32.xml S.L.C.
1 ‘‘(e) APPLICATION OF SECTION.—The credit under
2 this section shall apply with respect to qualified carbon
3 dioxide before the end of the calendar year in which the
4 Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator of the
5 Environmental Protection Agency, certifies that
6 75,000,000 metric tons of qualified carbon dioxide have
7 been captured and disposed of or used as a tertiary
8 injectant.’’.
9 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 38(b) (re
10 lating to general business credit) is amended by striking
11 ‘‘plus’’ at the end of paragraph (32), by striking the period
12 at the end of paragraph (33) and inserting ‘‘, plus’’, and
13 by adding at the end of following new paragraph:
14 ‘‘(34) the carbon dioxide sequestration credit
15 determined under section 45Q(a).’’.
16 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections
17 for subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1
18 (relating to other credits) is amended by adding at the
19 end the following new section:
‘‘Sec. 45Q. Credit for carbon dioxide sequestration.’’.
20 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
21 this section shall apply to carbon dioxide captured after
22 the date of the enactment of this Act.
180
1 SEC. 116. CERTAIN INCOME AND GAINS RELATING TO IN
2 DUSTRIAL SOURCE CARBON DIOXIDE TREAT
3 ED AS QUALIFYING INCOME FOR PUBLICLY
4 TRADED PARTNERSHIPS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (E) of section
6 7704(d)(1) (defining qualifying income) is amended by in
7 serting ‘‘or industrial source carbon dioxide’’ after ‘‘tim
8 ber)’’.
9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by
10 this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment
11 of this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
12 SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE.
13 (a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall
14 enter into an agreement with the National Academy of
15 Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Inter
16 nal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and
17 specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on car
18 bon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate
19 the magnitude of those effects.
20 (b) REPORT.—Not later than 2 years after the date
21 of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of
22 Sciences shall submit to Congress a report containing the
23 results of study authorized under this section.
24 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is
25 authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
26 $1,500,000 for the period of fiscal years 2009 and 2010.
188
22 (c) CARBON CAPTURE REQUIREMENT FOR CERTAIN
23 FUELS.—
24 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (d) of section
25 6426, as amended by subsection (a), is amended by
189
1 redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and
2 by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
3 paragraph:
4 ‘‘(4) CARBON CAPTURE REQUIREMENT.—
5 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The requirements of
6 this paragraph are met if the fuel is certified,
7 under such procedures as required by the Sec
8 retary, as having been derived from coal pro
9 duced at a gasification facility which separates
10 and sequesters not less than the applicable per
11 centage of such facility’s total carbon dioxide
12 emissions.
13 ‘‘(B) APPLICABLE PERCENTAGE.—For
14 purposes of subparagraph (A), the applicable
15 percentage is—
16 ‘‘(i) 50 percent in the case of fuel pro
17 duced after September 30, 2009, and on or
18 before December 30, 2009, and
19 ‘‘(ii) 75 percent in the case of fuel
20 produced after December 30, 2009.’’.
21 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Subparagraph
22 (E) of section 6426(d)(2) is amended by inserting
23 ‘‘which meets the requirements of paragraph (4) and
24 which is’’ after ‘‘any liquid fuel’’.
210
1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘qualified con
2 servation purpose’ means any of the following:
3 ‘‘(A) Capital expenditures incurred for
4 purposes of—
5 ‘‘(i) reducing energy consumption in
6 publicly-owned buildings by at least 20
7 percent,
8 ‘‘(ii) implementing green community
9 programs,
10 ‘‘(iii) rural development involving the
11 production of electricity from renewable
12 energy resources, or
13 ‘‘(iv) any qualified facility (as deter
14 mined under section 45(d) without regard
15 to paragraphs (8) and (10) thereof and
16 without regard to any placed in service
17 date).
18 ‘‘(B) Expenditures with respect to research
19 facilities, and research grants, to support re
20 search in—
21 ‘‘(i) development of cellulosic ethanol
22 or other nonfossil fuels,
23 ‘‘(ii) technologies for the capture and
24 sequestration of carbon dioxide produced
25 through the use of fossil fuels,
211
. . .
13 ‘‘(D) Demonstration projects designed to
14 promote the commercialization of— . . .
23 ‘‘(v) technologies for the capture and
24 sequestration of carbon dioxide emitted
212
1 from combusting fossil fuels in order to
2 produce electricity.
I think I smell the fetid aroma of the “night soil of a large, well fed male ox.” Or, from Space Cowboys – “I can tell you that’s unadultrated pure ——–“.
Mike
Would anyone else like to see laws written with a standard format that has strikethrough for eliminations of language and bold for new insertions? It seems like the method that is being used, while sound in a parliamentary way, is to a large extent obfuscation. You have to have another page open to the relevant part of US Code just to try to figure out where the changes occur in the text and what the changes are.
I don’t mind if the lawmakers use the existing format, they’re familiar with it and all, but they should have to hyperlink it to an addendum where the relevant sections of the law read as changed and show me the changes they’re proposing. That is not too much to ask, if “Google for Government” is worth the time then eliminating Gobbledegook for Government is equally worthwhile.
It’s the least we can ask for 10 grand per taxpayer, or whatever the final cost ends up being.
When so many politicians say so loudly that this MUST be passed.
Ain’t it obvious.
GRAVY TRAIN.
nb – David L Hagen’s post above, – much applause.
CO2 credit prices are starting to be defined: P. 175 – CO2 tax credit is worth $20 per metric ton if disposed “in secure geological storage”, but only $10 per ton if disposed “as a tertiary injectant in a qualified enhanced oil or natural gas recovery project”
Instead of “A chicken in every pot” we are getting the biggest kickback feeding frenzy in history.
The social and political elite will be murdering each other to get at this Bonanza like bloody hamburger to piranha.
The Senate dug a trillion dollar carbon sequestration hole to bury tax payers money. This CO2 black hole cancer will be even worse than HUD’s cancer of requiring 56% of taxpayer backed mortgages must go to very low income housing.
[…] the original: Sneaky: Current credit bailout bill contains carbon tax provisions! Tags: carbon-dioxide, case, climate, Climate Change, global-warming, national, politics, science, […]
This is why most of us do not trust politicians. Perhaps instead of a tea party we should dump thousands of barrels of oil into harbors and ignite them. Afterall, Big Al said it’s OK to do stuff like this as long as you believe in your cause.
Of course, Goldman et al want to see a CO2 cap and trade program. Who but Goldman et al will make the market and who but Hedge Funds will benefit from the purchase and sale of another commodity? SO2 credits get treated this way, why not CO2? These times are more than interesting.
Call your Representative and let him or her know your opinion on Bailout bill 2.0.
I’m an outsider, so take my opinion with a pinch of salt….
Me think that the socialist taking over the American Liberals
allied with the Green AGW-ers. The vilification of CO2 is well
on the way in a hurry. Way? Because the need a proof for global cooling,
and not other way around. Cooling then CO2 reduction. All over the World
socialist gov. rushing to introduce any form of control, before anyone notice
the scam.
I think this is a revenge from the collapse of the old Soviets and it’s allies
in the West. Call me paranoid, I think the new World order is on the way,
and the destruction of America began. I s##t myself.
Mick.
How bad would it be if Congress didn’t pass a bailout?
This bill looks to do more harm than good.
I sense Al Gore is behind this sneaky end run.
When one trough, based in this case on virtuality, empties another one will be made available.
The ‘Elite’, whatever colors they wear, will always see to that just as they always have in the past.
I never thought I would see the end of the current western civilization in my lifetime but I fear I well might if this herd insanity prevails.
Is anyone really surprised at this?
It has been said once 50% of the public receives direct government benefits in one form or another, voters will elect those who promise more still until the country’s economic system collapses under its own weight. Sooner than we realize, it may be cheaper to burn money than buy the energy to heat our homes.
American Capitalism is at death’s door.
“Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.”
This is getting off topic, but Paulson ran Goldman-Sachs when it was ratchetting up bad debts? Now her wants to force the taxpayer to cover them??
Anyone else smell something!
Is there a total on the earmarks contained in the bill for which McCain voted?
It is true, that you get the government you voted for. So grin and bear it. Eat your cat/dog food and be quiet.
This is nothing new. In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
-Voltaire (1764)
In this case, monwy flows from main-street to wall-street.
Let’s see how many conservatives reject the bill and send it back to the Senate. Can you imagine to anger? House Conservatives reject the bill because of this little toxic piece of legislation? The credit markets will crash all becuase some “militant conservatives” refused the bill in toto because of this carbon provision.
This is a normal way Congress has done business for decades. The more important the bill, the more pieces of anti-democratic earmarks that are attached to it. The Liberals are playing this nation for fools. The Carbon trading an other AGW riders should cause the entire GOP Caucus to reject this POS in full. If this credit crisis is so dire, the Senate should only allow financial related legislation to ride this thing (ie the lifting of FDIC insurance limits). All else should be rejected. This is not the way a democracy works.
In Canada’s election currently underway, one party (akin to the Democrats in the US) has proposed a Carbon Tax of $40 per ton of CO2 (offset with revenue neutral reductions in income tax and increased green spending). This is the latest proposal from the green fringe which is to tax Carbon but offset the increased revenue with income tax reductions or credits.
The Canadian public has generally turned a huge thumbs down to the proposal so it is not easy to actually implement these kind of programs.
[…] for the folly of mandated alt-fuel cars. Now we find that it has added the carbon tax — which would never survive real debate — into the bailout bill. Potential long-range cost: $34 […]
It’s been reported that the Treasury Secretary already has the authority to do this entire bailout on his own authority.
But our politicians have decided that $850 Billion [that’s what it’s up to now] needs divvying up between ACORN, Al Gore, and various other earmarks.
Better if the Secretary of the Treasury provides the financing; then it would be spent on the actual bailout. But that will never happen now.
It’s as good as a done deal. Too much money is being dangled in front of Congress. The holdouts will be bought off.
And we, the already hard-bitten taxpayers, will pay.
But if you want to do something, here’s some contact info:
Email your Senators: click
Email your Representative: click
[Funny about the government’s official sitefor emailing our Representatives — it’s not working. Maybe it’ll be back online after the bailout vote. In the mean time, the alternate list above will get you their email addresses.]
My hunch is that carbon trading is more a rich man’s deal than a democrat deal. I think that is why both sides vote for this nonsense. Whoever is for free market trading without oversight would love anything to do with carbon trading just like other “pollution” schemes of the past. Its a great way to hide wealth and get more tax deductions. Anyone, of any color, who is for this scheme seems to me to be more on the side of corporations instead of the common person…and common sense. This scheme will soon land in the same spot as fanny and freddy.
Back in the 70’s I had to become familiar with a new law that limited the size of gas fired boilers. I was surprised to find a provision that allowed for the duty-free importation of competition bobsleds!!! Now its 30 years later and the same crap is still going on today.
If you want to stop this monkey business join DownsizeDC.org. Their signature proposal is the “Read The Bills Act.” It would require congress to actually read bills before they vote on them. Novel concept eh?
But they also have proposed a “One Subject At A Time Act” which would put a stop to this nonsense of tacking unrelated bills on to other bills.
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp
You would think that something like the Read The Bills Act would be easy to pass. Well no way! DownsizeDc has been trying for years to get this done without success. Apparently congress doesn’t have time to read the bills.
DownsizeDc needs many more members to have an impact on congress. Please join.
Not willing to afford a (202) area code call, I called one of my Representative’s local offices this morning. That call was before I knew of the carbon language.
I’ll be making another call in the morning. I will let them know, in a calm voice, if they could feel how upset I am, they’d have to take off the rest of the day.
Now that my blood is reaching the boiling point I have one more comment. Both McCain and Obama have endorsed the AGW agenda. And both parties played a roll in creating the mortgage meltdown. We cannot end this garbage by voting for the R’s and the D’s. They are the cause of the financial crisis and they will create an energy crisis with their AGW schemes. If you want to end this then vote for a 3rd party candidate. Otherwise get ready for more of the same.
These bills MUST originate in the house. That’s the law and it should be followed. IF (and that’s an IF) this is such a monsterous event, then just walk the language over and have the House issue a new bill and get it into debate.
This is NOT the time to shortcut the Constitution. If this is to be done, it needs to be clean, tight and to the letter of the law. No pork, no attachments, no amendments, no “sweetners”.
Make em famous!
The reality is this this bill may become law. We will then all be green. Gore will have won. We must vote all of these blood sucking parasites out of office. The election is only a few weeks away. Vote them out.
[…] is the original: Comment on Sneaky: Current credit bailout bill contains carbon tax … Tags: announcements, climate, Climate Change, education, global-warming, halloween, hurricanes, […]
sneaky sneaky!
8 second clip from “Mr. Deeds”…
Ed Scott (17:24:14) :
Is there a total on the earmarks contained in the bill for which McCain voted?
The figure I saw on one of the networks was around $100Billion.
As an outsider, I’m a little amused. Why would a critical economic rescue bill have to be peppered with all those other inclusions? If its as serious as it seems to be, why not just put forward a bill that addresses that issue alone? But, like I said, I’m an outsider and what I know about your legislative process could be put in a thimble with room to spare for your finger.
The only hope we have now is if Palin becomes VP and convinces McCain of the CACO2GW hoax. Maybe this CO2 “rider” could hit the headlines and it can give a journalist itching for a lead in to a story on the hoax, to get it out there.
In her debate tonight Palin got as close as she could to expressing reality when she said man was not entirely responsible. I’ll take any bit of hope I can find that sanity and truth will prevail as I don’t like being snookered.
If some headline level technical or fraud revealing news does comes out, she might be well positioned to say “I told you so”.
We can only hope.
In contrast, Joe Biden KNOWS humans have caused global warming!
Just as a note:
The Senate picked a bill that did originate in the House (as all appropriations must) that had already passed once very handily. Then they amended it with the bailout and sent it back.
So… the bailout was attached to a bill full of crap. The crap wasn’t entirely ‘slapped onto the bailout’.
Some of the crap was added in though. The whole thing is infuriating.
G Alston, you’re a decade to late. The President gained the power of the line-item veto in 1996 with the passage of a “Line Item Veto Act.” However, within two years the ability was declared unconstitutional in the USSC case Clinton v. New York. Crossing out pork, it turns out, is legislating, not executing. Most states still have one, though – and it’s regularly used and abused in a partisan manner, particularly when budgets come for passing.
Pete, I’m glad someone brought up Palin’s curious remark as to global warming. If global warming is a natural, non-manmade thing (i.e. it’s part of a natural cycle), then why even worry about it? Why go through all that hassle of intervening if it’s just a regular occurrence. Or, more importantly, why even bother trying to mitigate it if humans can’t have an effect on the climate?
Global warming is a very politically charged issue. I’d go as far as arguing that the majority of skeptics I’ve met haven’t actually taken their cues from the skeptical scientists out there, but are actually just taking partisan political cues (same goes for many proponents as well). However, I pride myself in keeping most of my politics out of my scientific discussion of AGW; the science interests me, not the politics. I have to break my rule in this situation, though, because Palin’s answer was pathetic. Worst political double-speak I’ve seen in a long, long time.
[…] Watts Up With That, Oct. 2, 2008 [here] […]
David L. Hagen: Very good. If I’m not mistaken (and I may be) what I’m getting is that there are bribes for sequestration and gasification of coal but no actual carbon caps. I can live with that without liking it. At least 20% of it doesn’t go to ACORN (aka registering dead people and DC Superheroes to vote).
Two comments…
1) The reason the markets are in a mess right now is because of trading in imaginary derivatives, rather than in shares of companies that produce honest-to-goodness goods-and-services. So the “bailout” *MANDATES EVEN MORE TRADING IN IMAGINARY DERIVATIVES*!!! Hello?
2) an eerie parallel…
– If you took 1 subprime mortgage, you could never sell it as AAA paper. But http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YNyn1XGyWg&NR=1 on Youtube is a clip from CNBC explaining how a bunch of subprime mortgages can be pooled together, and you actually get allegedly AAA grade commercial paper out of it.
– take one GCM that comes nowhere near forecasting the past 20 years of global temperature, and everybody admits that it’s junk (bond) stuff. Take a couple of dozen GCMs that, individually, come nowhere near forecasting the past 20 years of global temperature, and pool them together into an “ensemble”. The IPCC considers this as a high-grade forecast.
HEY Guys…. This completely sums up both AGW and the Financial Credit sqeeze…… I’ve busted a rib laughin’ at this. 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1owcncKCHg
counters…
…exactly.
Maybe you’re starting to come around.
Not to worry, bills come then the weather changes and bills go. Oh that goes for nations as well so be careful.
To summarise the last few months:
Ireland is the first country to be proactive and guarantee Irish bank deposits resulting in increased liquidity and hacking off the europeans who didn’t dare do this and are now complaining that people are moving their money from European to Irish banks. Kudos to the Irish!!
Al Qaeda didn’t have to go through the messy terrorist route to bring down the economy, just take out a few mortgages (better than a dingy cave in Pakistan!) and George W will do the rest.
Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in AGW or evolution, and her phraseoloy is more Deputy Dawg than potential president.
The weather has been cooler over the Northern hemisphere this year, except the pole, check this graph of ice anomolies, the flattening of global temperatures seems to coincide with a sharp downward trend in sea ice area.
So that dagnabbit is the month in focus!
Dagnabbit, forgot the link:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Having worked in Africa ( 8 Countries) and seen how things operate, our new political system is, maybe about to arrive. In African society is divided into 2 (them) the great unwashed. ( Us) super rich politicians and family.
I seem to recall that Al Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management hired several ex-Goldmand Sachs bankers to spearhead its role in trading carbon credits and the like – so GIM is ideally placed to take advantage of the feeding frenzy – which in the EU has seen billions spent by taxpayers to virtually no effect on emissions.
And what’s all this about ‘socialist’ plots – you guys over the pond have no idea what a socialist really is – I agree with Pamela Gray, the plotters are corporate banking types who have misled the greens (who are naive and gullible), and see an easy market – this is not about ‘socialist ‘ control – it is about hidden agendas for wealth creation for an elite riding upon misled environmental concern.
According to Snowfalcon
“And what’s all this about ’socialist’ plots – you guys over the pond have no idea what a socialist really is – I agree with Pamela Gray, the plotters are corporate banking types who have misled the greens (who are naive and gullible), and see an easy market – this is not about ’socialist ‘ control – it is about hidden agendas for wealth creation for an elite riding upon misled environmental concern.”
This statement appears to be taken from Barney Franks playbook. Set up a system to Force the banks to make loans to people who have no downpayment or means to make the payments, disparage those who warn the system is headed for a trainwreck, when the scheme collapses blame the greedy bankers, and finally tell the taxpayers they will be stuck with the bill.
Barneys scheme was about socialist control and so is carbon credits/tax!!
snowfalcon, I also agree with Pamela Grey, but when the corporations are mixed with the government, it becomes a socialist society. We may not be there yet, but many politicians are pushing hard in that direction. The carbon tax is just another cost to the taxpayers. I would not be surprised to see electricity go up 3-500% in the next few years. Denmark (lots of wind energy) is paying upwards of $.35/Kwhr (US), I am now paying $.08/Kwhr. Of course, this would not be raising ‘taxes’ on those making less than $250K/yr., it taxes the energy corporations who simply pass on their tax increase to the customer.
The tax credit bill that the Senate attached to the bailout legislation is not new, nor is it primarily about climate change. It has been called the ‘extenders’ bill – it extends tax credits for renewable energy production (wind, solar, biodiesel), a one-year fix for the AMT, and a bunch of other provisions favored by Republicans and Democrats alike.
It was passed in stand-alone form by the Senate 92-3 last week. A slightly different version has already been passed by the House three times this year. The problem – the Senate version is not revenue-neutral, i.e., it will increase the deficit. The revised PAYGO rules of the House make it almost impossible to pass as a stand-alone bill. The House versions of the bill contain revenue-raising provisions designed to punish the petroleum industry, which has resulted in Republican filibusters in the Senate.
By attaching this popular bill to the financial bailout legislation, the Senate is attempting to break the deadlock and get the extenders bill passed. This is how our Congress works today (I am using the term ‘works’ loosely.)
This is one of the many reasons this bull (I mean bill) is being rushed through Congress. I much more sensible approach would be to dole out the money in increments, starting with about $150 Billion, and then add more as needed and if things were going well with the program. I can’t imagine we can possibly spend all $780 Billion in the next few weeks, so why not slow down?
Paulson IS an AGW- and enviro-nut. He’s also too close to Wall Street and too close to a certain party now running Congress that caused this mess because they wanted more home loans to people who didn’t qualify.
Anthony,
Great post pointing out an inappropriate item added to the rescue plan by the Senate. Unfortunately there are a lot more. They should be ashamed of themselves feeding on the taxpayer at a time where some action is needed (at least by many). They are worse than a predatory lendor taking advantage of someone in dire need. What a disgrace.
When I first saw the Senate leaders come out during the press conference and explain their rescue Bill, I thought at last there is some hope in the Senate. Boy was I naive !!!
Now we know that the $700 bill grew to $812 billion and was filled with all kinds of goodies for NASCAR, wooden Arrows, extending tax breaks for film and television productions, mine rescue training, undercover operations, railway maintenance, idling reduction units in trucks, refined coal used by steel producers, small wind power projects, donations of food or books to charities, hurricane relief employees and people affected by the Exxon Valdez oil spill, etc.
Also burried in the bill is increased taxes on fossil fuels that will increase the price of gasoline and heating oil. See the URL below.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6035335.html
They should have told us about this during the press conference.
The line item veto …
Such snipping would no longer be enough. The senate took a 100-page bailout by Paulson/Bernanke and created a 450-page, pork-laden monstrosity.
Who inserted the carbon credits nonsense?
Bill in the House this morning. It’ll probably pass, but that is not for sure yet. Just like Congress to “pork a bill”. I wish I could run my house like Congress. I could live like a “fat cat”. But, that’s not reality, and I wish Congress would be like the rest of us. I guess I have a better chance of get hit by lightning, than for that to come true. Seems like no matter who you put there, they become Washingtonized at some point.
John Nicklin (21:21:56) :
“…I’m an outsider and what I know about your legislative process could be put in a thimble with room to spare for your finger.”
That puts you on a par with the average American voter.
This whole bailout stinks. Ties between Paulson / Goldman, the shotgun marriage of Merrill Lynch / BOA, failed lenders everywhere… I hear senators are now proposing (to the approving cheers of mortgage banks) that troubled housing loans will not only have their interest reduced to a smaller fixed amount, but the principles as well. Great! Can I get a retroactive reduction in and reimbursement for the “excess” principle I’ve been paying, along with the interest and taxes we’ve paid (indeed, pre-paid whenever we had extra) over the last 15 years?
Citizen complaints about this bill, or sections of it, are justified and appropriate, but better be quick. Pressure on the House seems to be building, and pretty soon, whatever the bill was at its heart will be covered over with the layers of porcine excess.
“…Palin’s curious remark as to global warming…”
She was incoherent, trying to come down on both sides. Not impressive.
Politicians need to hear the mantra repeated: It’s getting cooler.
Well it passed. It’ll go to the President, who will sign it.
House passes bill
By vote of 268 – 148
Final bill: H.R.1424 Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
SEC. 115. TAX CREDIT FOR CARBON DIOXIDE SEQUESTRATION.
[…] the Carbon Tax language as of yesterday, no word yet on if it changed […]
By a vote of 261-171.
172 Dems and 91 Reps voted YES
63 Dems 108 Reps voted NO
Whoops please scratch that one. I don’t know the numbers, they keep changing.
The following link I found at Climate Skeptic. Oddly, there is a relation to the current financial crisis, and AGW.
Click here for NYT video
My summary of the NYT video:
5 firms – Goldman Sachs, Merril Lynch, Lehman Bros, Morgan Stanley and Bears Stern, applied in Apr 2004, to change investment rules. Basically, they were allowed to use computer models to assess the level of risk in investments.
My commentary:
Gore says that climate models can be trusted, because Wall Street has used similar models for years.
Look how that turned out, on wall street, for these firms.
The weakness, or outright failure of each, is a major contributor to the financial crisis of 2008.
Now, my question to the believers of Climate Models:
Should we invest 40 trillion in these models?
My question to the SEC:
ARE YOU GUYS ON CRACK?
It passed…ghad help us all……
cdl
“Don Shaw (05:43:44)”
“This statement appears to be taken from Barney Franks playbook. Set up a system to Force the banks to make loans to people who have no downpayment or means to make the payments, disparage those who warn the system is headed for a trainwreck, when the scheme collapses blame the greedy bankers, and finally tell the taxpayers they will be stuck with the bill.
Barneys scheme was about socialist control and so is carbon credits/tax!!”
Don I think you nailed it. I would add one further point which can also be blamed squarely on government. The free trade deals which were enacted by both parties have caused American industries to move their plants to China for low labor costs. The displaced American workers found themselves unemployed or employed at lower paying jobs. So the mortgage payments which were affordable when the wages were higher, are now unaffordable and the homeowner is forced into default.
Bah! But you all knew this was coming. Every time something repugnant comes across the halls of Congress it gets dolled up with bits that the potential “Nays” cannot refuse and passes even though no one really likes it. Don’t let the “Yea” voter in your Congressional district get away with it. Too bad there isn’t a comments line on the ballot to explain why you voted for or against someone.
“Limit Down.”
The futures markets for stock indexes are currently (8:45 a.m. EDT) “locked,” because they have reached their down limit of a 5% price drop.
When the NYSE opens, the limits change to 10% – when the Dow and S&P 500 drop by 10% trading will be halted for 1 hour. This could happen within the first few minutes of trading.
The percentage limits are set at the beginning of each calendar quarter. The 10% limit was based on a Dow of 11,000, so the drop that halts trading will be 1100 Dow points.
The “silver lining” if there is one, is that oil prices have also crashed, even with an OPEC “emergency cut” of 1.5 million BPD.
So why was it so important to pass this crappy bailout bill again?