It seems our future is being bargained away for a few pieces of silver as this passage from the article indicates. Those of you that have an interest in this, now is the time to write and call your U.S. representative. – Anthony
While Shimkus acknowledged that closed-door negotiating was “just a way of doing business” in Congress, he said offering emission allowances for votes may take the process beyond ethical boundaries.
From the Washington Examiner: To get votes, Waxman offers cap-and-trade breaks
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
04/23/09
 |
| Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has led efforts to entice votes for the Democratic energy bill by giving some oil refineries favorite treatment in the cap and trade system. |
In exchange for votes to pass a controversial global warming package, Democratic leaders are offering some lawmakers generous emission “allowances” to protect their districts from the economic pain of pollution restrictions.
Rep. Gene Green, D-Texas, represents a district with several oil refineries, a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions. He also serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which must approve the global warming plan backed by President Barack Obama.
Green says Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who heads the panel, is trying to entice him into voting for the bill by giving some refineries favorable treatment in the administration’s “cap and trade” system, which is expected to generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming years. Under the plan, companies would pay for the right to emit carbon dioxide, but Green and other lawmakers are angling to get a free pass for refineries in their districts.
“We’ve been talking,” Green said, referring to a meeting he had with Waxman on Tuesday night. “To put together a bill that passes, they have to get our votes, and I’m not going to vote for a bill without refinery allowances.”
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the top Republican on the energy panel, said Waxman and others are also dangling allowances for steel and coal-fired power plants to give political cover to Democrats whose districts rely on these companies.
Democrats so far have been unable to get enough support from their own members to pass the bill out of a small global warming subcommittee because most Republicans and many Democrats say the plan will raise energy rates, destroy jobs and increase prices on manufactured goods.
Republicans said Waxman and subcommittee chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass., are calling Democrats into their offices and offering allowances, also called credits, in exchange for votes.
Waxman told The Examiner he was not trading votes for allowances.
“That is what the Republicans are saying, but that is not accurate,” he said. The bill left out specifics on allowances “in order to be able to have discussions on how best to ease the transition for various geographical regions and ratepayers.”
“I will politely disagree,” said energy committee member John Shimkus, R-Ill., who insisted Waxman “is calling members into his office to try to get their vote, and that will be based on the credits they are offering.”
While Shimkus acknowledged that closed-door negotiating was “just a way of doing business” in Congress, he said offering emission allowances for votes may take the process beyond ethical boundaries.
“We are talking real dollars here, real shareholder wealth,” Shimkus said, “and we are not being given the time to analyze these credits.”
Environmentalists and free-market advocates say the credits will favor struggling, out-of-date operations.
“We are going to have electricity that is dirtier because the allowances are going to be misallocated,” said Robert Michaels, an economics professor at California State University and senior fellow for the Institute for Energy Research.
Read the full article here (h/t to Ron de Haan
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can anyone provide a link to complete video of the congressional testimonies given on March 25?
I can’t seem to find it anywhere.
How bad has it gotten?
Besides OR Rep. Blumenauer (D) echoing the AGW gibberish
here in Oregon our Governor is about adopt Oregon’s version of Cap and Trade with help from the legislature.
The University or Oregon cooked up a study that showed that doing nothing would cost every Oregon family 2000.00 per year that cap and trade and other Governor Kulongoski policies will ultimately SAVE them money.
juan (18:57:53) :
“…How to do it must obviously be regarded as the natural and mortal enemy of… How not to do it.
In this was to be found the basis of the wise system, by tooth and nail upheld by the Circumlocution Office, of warning every ingenious British subject to be ingenious at his peril: of harassing him, obstructing him, inviting robbers (by making his remedy uncertain, and expensive) to plunder him, and at the best of confiscating his property after a short term of enjoyment, as though invention were on a par with felony.”
Juan, thank you for this remarkable bit of Dickensian insight.
Chemist (09:50:55)
WUWT C-SPAN is the reference source for videos of hearings.
See http://www.c-spanarchives.org/
Good luck. I couldn’t listen to Gore and stay calm.
Budget Neutral Taxation, or Revenue Neutral. This is an oxymoron of biblical proportions.
BC Canada has a “revenue neutral carbon tax”, counting the shortfall in consumption revenue and the increase of people eligible for the energy credits due to recession and special assistance from the Government, they came up nearly 20% short in revenue to pay the “revenue neutral” programs and other taxation breaks given before any revenue was attained, proving you cannot create a Zero Sum Tax.
When you use revenue from consumption that credits lower income people “to offset” the effect of a tax and the economy slows you get a divergence of number of people qualifying vs number people paying the first rises and the second lowers, this is the multiplies the deficit for the program.
In the US watch the Children’s Health Tobacco Tax Revenue, I will Guarantee that the budget has a shortfall on this program. So if you want low income family children to have health care then DO NOT QUIT SMOKING. Anyone see a problem brewing here?
Cap and Trade is like everything this Admin does, there is a limit to what they determine is a reasonable income, production level, size of business or amount of emissions you can have and if you are bigger than what they determine you should PAY PAY PAY or they simply shut you down or take over your business. Imagine the first carbon insolvency to land in the Treasury Dept. and the response.
The whole cap-and-trade scheme is nothing but a PERVERSE MONEY-GRABBING SCAM anyway. Just ask the good folks over at eureferendum.blogspot.com (who are huge fans of WUWT by the way) and they will tell you all about Europe’s experience with it. Cap-and-trade is nothing more than government-control of the free market through arbitrary allocations of permits, which means one thing: money. If you’re a CEO of a company that is doing marginally well and you want to boost your profits for your shareholders (and thus their dividends), all you have to do is close a factory. Here’s the bonus to that in a way that does not exist today: you get to say your company is becoming more ‘environmentally friendly’ based on the reduction of your carbon emissions score. You can also sell off your extra permits to industries that have a higher demand for their products, but also have a tighter ceiling or are over their limit with regards to permits. You thus get “instant” profits by putting people out of work, and “instant” credibility (for what it’s worth) for being more environmentally friendly. All those working class folks now out of work are going to need the so-called ‘tax credits’ Obama is promising just to survive. And you can bet, with the way he is going to rig the tax code to soak the ‘rich,’ that nobody but nobody is going to mess with the system and thus raise their own taxes. The only thing this bill and others of its ilk does is to make us more dependent on the federal government, which is surely not what the Founders had in mind when they wrote it into the Constitution. But there again, with things like McCain-Feingold being discussed as if they were necessary and proper and then passed into law with nary a question, we seem to have left the Constitution in the back porch dust-bin as we walk out of the house. Mark my words, if this monstrosity comes into being, state and local governments will be even more irrelevant than they are now. We will no longer be a federal republic except in name only. The federal government will have complete power over our lives (what doesn’t take energy to do or make or buy?) and all the money will go towards nothing but further corruption and manipulation of the law for the privilege of making an extra few dollars if you have the influence to buy it. There will be lobbying like nobody has ever seen for a few more carbon permits to this or that industry so it can be more profitable. POWER CORRUPTS. ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY. That is what this bill means.
Does this surprise you? Cap & trade has ALWAYS been about political power over industry; this is just setting up the Democratic protection racket. The environmental preservation argument is only for the suckers.
The actual point of cap and trade is control and corruption. Allocation to contributors and collaborators in exchange for favors.
It’s Rob Blagojevitch Chicago style politics.
First, Chicago climate exchange receives start up funding by Joyce foundation. BO on the Joyce foundation board doing the funding.
Second, Cap and trade promoted as the preferred method by president BO.
Third, preferred industries/buddies are allowed higher carbon credits in return for support.
Result- more control.
If Waxman were truly serious about curbing carbon emissions, these kinds of deals would be off the table. What hypocrisy!
Letter already drafted and sent to my House representative.
Will Hollywood High School’s oil wells be granted a Waxman cap and trade dispensation so the poor little rich kids won’t have to go out selling Sally Foster junk to fill budget deficits?
I tried to vote against Waxman. Unfortunately he was the only name on the ballot. The only thing I could do was abstain. People might want to look at their districts and see who is running unopposed. Could have been a surprise winner if someone was running against him. I would have voted for the unknown person just to get Waxman out.
[snip – ad homs]