Wrong. You really need to do your homework on ACESA. Big Coal gets a waiver until 2025. Agribusiness is EXEMPT altogether even though it's responsible for up to 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation that passed the House contains enough loopholes to make its claimed performance standards worthless, one of which prohibits the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate future greenhouse gas emissions. That alone means they'll proliferate beyond what new technology reduces on its own, and only then if it's profitable to do it. ACESA is about profits, not environmental remediation. Its emissions reduction targets are so weak, they effectively license pollution by creating a new profit center to do it. Think a multi-trillion dollar derivatives market isn't in the works for Wall Street firms to profit from this Bill, as well as allow polluters to circumnavigate it? Think again. CFTC commissioner Bart Chilton is already on record saying that he believes that a carbon derivatives market will be a $2 TRILLION dollar market place.
Yes, of course, that is what Cap-And-Trade is; a brand new commodity to be traded, created out of thin air by Al Gore, who stands to make billions. Those billions have to come from somewhere, my bet the American taxpayer and business owner will have to cough it up. And as Palin points out, that can't add to our economic well-being. As for this having an impact on "Climate Change", .... please .... Apparently, Spain is quite further along in adopting these renewable energy sources that Kerry advocates, with reportedly disastrous effects . Tilting at green windmills By George Will http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will062509.php3 What Gov. Palin Forgot John Kerry U.S. Senator from Massachusetts http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/what-gov-palin-forgot_b_231892.html
Where else is it going to come from? You add costs to a company out of thin air, that has the obvious effect of raising prices, and/or cutting profits. Less profits means less investment capital, less growth, less jobs, less everything. And, Of Course, MUCH higher energy costs across the board. Can any of this be denied? EVERYONE LOSES, accept of course the carbon-handlers.
Landis - are you making the claim that not one single person will see a tax hike our any other increases in the cost of goods and services as a result of cap and trade?
What is it about the FACT that 85% of the carbon credits are being given out for FREE by the Federal Government that you don't understand? As for Palin and her article in the Washington Post the other day . . . I couldn't do anything else but laugh. She and McCain both supported placing caps on carbon emissions during the Presidential campaign. When asked during the Vice Presidential debates if she was in favor of supporting a cap and trade policy, Palin said, "I do. I do". http://www.redstate.com/keeper/2009/07/15/palin-on-cap-and-trade-liar-hypocrite-or-just-confused/ Yet, the other day in her Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post she stated the following in regards to "Cap & Trade": "â¦I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage."
Your reading comprehension is absolutely horrible. George Will's article has NOTHING to do with the Cap & Trade legislation that came out of the House. Absolutely nothing. Zero.
sheese .... for a supposedly smart person, you really can't see the forest for the trees ... the funds from the cap-and-trade are intended to be used toward "energy independence" and "green energy", which George Will directly addresses using Spains experiences as an example. so, I thought I'd add to you list of complaints about cap-and-trade , because yours are not only incomplete, but asinine... "The Farmers Won't Have To Pay! The consumers won't have to pay higher electricity costs generated from coal and higher food costs".... I'm horrible at a lot things, comprehending you is not one them.
Actually it is your reading comprehension skills which are off.... even if they are giving away 80% (which i do not believe will happen) that still means they are charging for the other 20% which then imposes a cost, and ends up being a tax to the end consumer. Hell even if they end up giving away 95% there is still 5% to be paid for by the consumer, be it through loss of jobs or increased prices. Please tell me exactly which part of this article you deem to be untrue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html