Cap N Trade Bill

Oct 12, 2009
Cap N Trade Bill

I just heard on Fox that Boxer just pass an energy bill that's 'cap n trade' that the Republicans knew nothing about.
No news articles yet,but I copied this 'old' article so you can get the idea how it's going to hurt America' economy...

Date: Monday, September 7 2009

Washington - U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer is preparing to introduce climate-change legislation that would significantly alter the course of the nation's energy policy. Passage of the bill would represent a defining moment - both for the effort to curb global warming through pollution limits and
for Boxer herself as she readies for what could be a tough 2010 re-election bid. The California Democrat and part-time Riverside County resident will attempt to shepherd the bill through a conflicted Senate by the end of the year, when world leaders are scheduled to hold climate-change talks at a United Nations summit in Copenhagen. It will be no easy feat.
Critics are already lining up against the bill, saying it will kill thousands of jobs, cause household energy bills to skyrocket and do little to reduce the effects of climate change.
But success, Boxer said, would send a powerful message that the United States is going to take the lead in promoting alterative energy industries, and force other nations to follow.
"I'm convinced that a really good bill will be the launching pad for a great economic boom in our country," she said.
"The country that does this is going to lead the 21st century economically."
Boxer had planned to introduce the bill Tuesday, when Congress returns from its August recess.
But a combination of factors, including the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., forced her to delay it until later this month. cap and trade The proposal, which reflects a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's domestic policy agenda, seeks to reduce pollution from greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 and more than 80 percent by 2050.
The bill relies on a "cap-and-trade" system to impose new pollution limits or "caps" on power plants, oil refineries and other industry.
Under the system, the federal government would issue pollution allowances, also known as credits to polluters.
The amount of allowances would gradually decrease over time.
Those facilities able to operate under the cap could sell their leftover allowances to other plants.
The goal is to increase reliance on alternative and renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, a shift proponents say would create waves of new "green" jobs.
At the same time, decreased use of fossil-fuel-generated energy would reduce the U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
The bill would also pave the way for expanded production of electric cars, and would require increased energy efficiency in federal buildings and home electrical appliances.
The House narrowly passed its version of the bill earlier this year, mostly along party lines.
But the Senate presents major obstacles for Boxer and other supporters, not the least of which is the fierce debate over health care.
That battle has dominated national headlines for months and, if it lingers into the fall, could halt momentum on the equally controversial climate-change proposal.
Even if the focus shifts to climate change, proponents will need 60 votes in the Senate to prevent a filibuster.
With Kennedy's death, Democrats have 59 members in the Senate. Although several Republicans have spoken in favor of mandatory reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, several Democrats from coal-producing states are reluctant to support Boxer's bill. opposition remains
The largely Republican opposition in Congress contends that the bill would lead to a spike in energy costs, which would be passed along to households at a time when Americans already are suffering from a national recession.
Various government reports estimate that the proposal would cost the average household between $80 and $175 per year by 2020.
Republicans, including Inland Rep. Ken Calvert, say the increases would be higher and would drive companies to India and China, where doing business costs less.
Renewable power can fill only a fraction of the country's energy needs, they say. "I'm all for solar and I'm all for wind," said Calvert, R-Corona. "
That's still going to be only a small part of the solution." Seeking to reduce dependence on foreign oil, Calvert has introduced a bill that would remove restrictions on leases to explore and drill for oil and natural gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. T
he bill prevents any drilling within 25 miles of the shoreline, unless coastal states pass their own laws to allow leases closer to the shore. Calvert, along with Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, and more than 100 other House Republicans, co-sponsored legislation introduced as an alternative to the Democrats plan by House Republican leader John Boehner, of Ohio.
That bill contains no cap-and-trade component and calls for increased oil drilling and heavier reliance on nuclear power. Calvert, Issa and Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Redlands, voted against the House version of Boxer's bill, but Reps. Joe Baca, D-Rialto, and Mary Bono Mack, R-Palm Springs, voted for it. Science Questioned A host of lawmakers in both chambers of Congress maintain that Boxer and others are exaggerating the threat of global warming.
During recent hearings of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the panel's top Republican, routinely pointed to a list of scientists from around the globe who question the severity of global warming. Inhofe declared in a recent blog posting that "a steady stream" of scientists has "challenged the U.N.'s and former Vice President Al Gore's claims that the `science is settled' and there is a `consensus.'"
But Manik Roy, vice president of federal government outreach for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, which favors Boxer's legislation, questioned the credibility of those scientists.
"They're not drawing from peer-reviewed science to make that conclusion," Roy said. Officials in California concur. Last month, the state's Natural Resources Agency issued a draft plan that would require state agencies to adapt their operations to account for global warming.
Potential threats outlined in the plan include rising sea levels, which could cause flooding in coastal communities and taint the water supplies around the state.
Increasing temperatures also have been linked to the trend toward longer and more severe wildfire seasons, particularly in Southern California's forests. "If the planet heats up too much, we're going to have an America that doesn't resemble this one and will be very incompatible with the health of our families," Boxer said. Proponents of the plan also argue climate change is a national security and foreign relations issue, reasoning that rising sea levels and water shortages in impoverished Asian and South American countries could lead to a surge in refugees heading into the United States.
Different strategy Boxer last year failed to pass climate change legislation featuring a cap-and-trade system in the Senate.
Her effort fell 12 votes shy. There are two key changes this time around. The first is the president: Obama has made climate change legislation one of his top domestic priorities, perhaps second only to health care.
The second is strategic. Instead of putting forward a single, standalone bill as she did last year, Boxer's cap-and-trade bill will serve as the core of a larger legislative package that will be joined with components from five other committees whose jurisdiction touches on the issue.
The idea is to expose the legislation to as many senators as possible early in the process and allow them to help shape the final product.
That way more senators have a personal stake in getting it passed. The White House has embraced the plan. "The process last time didn't work," said Heather Zichal, deputy assistant to the president for energy and climate change.
"What's good is that they're trying to engage folks early on to get their input and their advice as these different committees mark up different provisions." In recent months, Boxer has held countless private meetings with scores of lawmakers to promote the bill. But her prominent role could cost her support from some independent or nonpartisan voters in the 2010 election, said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll.
"If they get turned off, that might put her in some jeopardy," he said. One recent Rasmussen poll found Boxer just four points ahead of possible challenger Carly Fiorina, a former Hewlett-Packard chief executive. Fiorina, a Los Altos Hills Republican who has yet to formally declare her candidacy, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on Boxer's legislation. Reach Ben Goad at 202-661-8422 or [email protected]