The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
The Public Policy
Print Email
Text Size

The Public Policy

We Need a Mexican Standoff on Cap and Trade

By & on 8.2.10 @ 6:08AM

Democrats still have big lame duck plans — which Obama would bring to fruition in Cancun.

Despite claims to the contrary, the energy tax known as cap and trade is still alive. Although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has supposedly pulled the plug on it, our implacable Senatorial leadership is reportedly conspiring to foist the Kerry-Lieberman bill on the American people by bringing it to a vote during the lame duck session. They would then reinstate the cap and trade provision during conference with the House’s Waxman-Markey Bill. This scheme would not only impose huge new taxes on the American people, it could also transfer billions of dollars and many thousands of jobs to Mexico.

The first reason for timing the vote after the election should be obvious. The Democrats hope that retiring Republican Senators George Voinovich (OH), George LeMieux (FL), and Judd Gregg (NH), who have voiced support for climate legislation in the past and will no longer need to worry about responding to their constituents, will buck the party line in order to cement their respective “legacies” in the eyes of the media and liberal historians. Asked about this possibility, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he “certainly wouldn’t rule it out.” This threat must be taken seriously.

Most Americans understand that cap and trade would mean skyrocketing energy costs — as the President himself admitted during his election campaign — but that’s not all. Cap and trade would carry serious geopolitical ramifications for the United States.

During the lame duck session, President Obama will likely travel to Cancun, not on vacation, but to attend a global climate summit. At this follow-up to the failed Copenhagen summit, the international environmental establishment will hope to revive negotiations for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The U.S. will face pressure not only to cap its own emissions, but to provide aid to developing countries like Mexico to help them develop their own “green” energy industries and build new, “clean” industrial capacity — the better to out-compete America’s newly energy-taxed industries. The EU has already pledged €7.3 billion ($9.92 billion) in “climate aid” to poor countries over the next three years (although much of this is repurposed general aid).

Where would America find the money to send this aid abroad? Much of the money would likely come from the sale of carbon permits to American businesses, the cost of which will mostly be passed on to consumers. Developing countries are demanding this as part of any successor to Kyoto, which expires in 2012. However, they are also demanding that developing countries — including major emerging economies like Mexico, Brazil, and China — be exempted from having to reduce their own emissions, at least in the short term.

In other words, Kyoto II would be a ratchet, aimed at squeezing money from the developed world and sending it to the developing nations. Entire industries would be so badly affected by the carbon caps that they would move lock, stock, and barrel to developing countries, so the flow of cash would soon turn into a flow of cash and jobs. Meanwhile, developed countries, facing huge job losses, would face a much harder time raising the money to fund the flow of cash. As a result, the promises of climate aid would be even harder to keep as the developed world sinks into an artificial recession, caused by our own climate guilt.

The sad reality is that this utopian scheme would not even result in global emissions reductions, because industries will relocate to where they would need to make no appreciable cuts in emissions. For Mexico, this, combined with its proximity to the United States, would mean a huge boon to its industrial capacity as many American firms relocate facilities there.

President Obama likely will be feted by both the Hollywood glitterati and the Mexican people if he brings this stimulus for the Mexican economy to Cancun. The American people should be wary of such generosity with their money. If ever we needed a “Mexican standoff” on a Senate measure, this is it.

About the Author

Iain Murray heads the Center for Economic Freedom at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is the author of Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats Are Getting Rich Off of You.

About the Author

Roger Abbott is a research associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (53) |

Melvin| 8.2.10 @ 8:06AM

"Kyoto II would be a ratchet, aimed at squeezing money from the developed world and sending it to the developing nations."
So there we have it, something that most of us already knew, Cap & Trade has absolutely nothing to do with Carbon, Co2, or the Caribou.
It is the Liberal mindset that is not defined by geographical barriers, but is defined by the Far Left Liberal Philosophy of the Industrialized and rich countries of the world, spending huge, huge amounts money that we cannot fathom on bringing the poorer Nations up to economic parity with the industrialized West by force whether we like it or not.

"It's all about Fairness."

Mark James| 8.2.10 @ 1:33PM

Actually it's all about the redistribution of wealth to usher in the one world socialist government.

STILL STANDING| 8.2.10 @ 5:47PM

Of course it is. What the hell did everyone think this socialist meant when he said Redistribute the Wealth? It was to redistribute America's wealth to other nations.

Obama's father never served this country. His mother could not have cared less about America, the slut just ran off with the idiot and brought forth Barack Jr. His wife never liked America, Pastor Wright, despite service as a marine, like Rep. John Murtha, turned his back on his own country (sorry Marines, but these two are traitors).

When the bullets start, I wonder who our military will side with, the people or the facists running the government? What a horror show our beloved country has become.

Carpe Diem 2011| 1.16.11 @ 7:41PM

What would be wrong with that? Socialism is not a swear word. For a society to function holistically it has to has to have this component built in. That's why we have publicly funded education. We don't even question it...yet that is a good example of the benefit of socialism. It's 'publicly' funded because we decided as a society (socialism) about a hundred years ago that education was important enough to allocate tax dollars to it. Before that only the very rich had access to education. There were only private schools and universities - no such thing as public education. In Canada and other countries, the health of their nation is deemed to be important which is why all Canadians have 'public' health care paid for by tax dollars. The best chance we have of fostering an educated and healthy society is through a publicly funded system. Insurance providers don't give a hoot about you and me ...they see us as MONEY ...only money. Christopher Reeve (aka - Superman) who was a multimillionaire died penniless because the ruthless insurance providers broke him. You should watch Michael Moore's documentary 'SICKO' to get the picture. While I may not agree with everything any government does, one thing President Obama has done that will be seen in history as historical and for the good of all is introduce public health care. The welfare bums that you should be writing about are the corporations ...they continually have their hands in the public purse - bail out after bail out with rarely ever a pay back. These are drag on society that we need to rid our selves of.

Carpe Diem 2011| 1.16.11 @ 7:47PM

You speak of fairness....how fair has it been to neighboring nations for us to go in and help our selves to their resources? ...to exploit nations around the world, perpetrate war on them, pollute not only their lands but the planet as a whole? It's time we stopped whining and did our part to show leadership - we can start by embracing Green Energy technology - clean up our act. From what I see - this is exactly what President Obama is striving for.

Tenn Slim| 8.2.10 @ 8:13AM

Opine
Global Re distribution of the USA wealth, extraordinare. The Strategy is bold, worthy of the best of Senator Reids efforts to insure his toady place at the OBMA Oval office.
Folks. While we enjoy this discussion, the agenda is obvious, real and deadly. We must Prevail in November, we must remain Vigilant and alert to all aspects of the OBNA.
One that is silent but happening is the Civil Service RE adjustments, akin to the Czar led agencies regulation adjustment. Via RIFs and appointed second, third and forth level positions, the Left will insure an ongoing movement, within the Federal Government. The OBNA Legacy and the Left's movement must continue. The Federal Civil Service Corps is the most logical place to insure this.
We WILL Prevail
End
Semper FI

Louis Jenkins| 8.2.10 @ 9:05AM

I would gladly trade our tax dollars for new industry in Mexico if it would solve the immigration situation. But the problem goes deeper. Immigration will not subside, and the siphoning off of US industry reeks. The whole situation is dire, and yes, Reid will seek one last hurrah. If the GOP doesn't grand stand stand until Nov. we're in for a difficult time.

SpiralArchitect | 8.2.10 @ 4:03PM

As a Nevada resident and openly conservative citizen I have no doubt Harry Reid will be re-elected. Obviously, to be wrong such a level would be my pleasure, however unrealistic.

Union support, that alone is enough to fearmonger (usurp) votes. But it will not stop there...

I do not claim all politicians to be wholesome - that would be an obscene claim. There are some that are righteous, in the sense I believe most of the readers here are and or understand.

Angle, Reid's opponant is not the best suited canadate, OK, I'll concede that.
Yet I would take a Billy Goat over Reid - anyhting to remove him as Senate Maj. Leader.

I fear Harry will have far more dead and fictous people vote in his favor than Angle. The actual numbers, as often has been proven, are not what determins the 'winner' in most elections. >:(

ncatty| 8.2.10 @ 9:33AM

The left will not be deterred by precedent, custom, respect for the voters or polling. If they can pass it as lame ducks, they will. Remember how they passed healthcare? Reconciliation, "deeming it passed", not reading the bill, midnight sessions. You have to appreciate their focused ruthlessness.

Lian Han EDF | 8.2.10 @ 9:36AM

I'm glad that there are still hopefuls even after unsuccessful passage of a gutted act. While there is evidence that energy costs would jump, we need to see that there is a bigger picture behind unfolding in the coming years. As one of the leading CO2 emitters in the world, we need to start rationalizing with the fact that at some point in time we're going to need to explore alternative energy industries. Please support cap and tax, for the future of the country and the world.

gypsy| 8.2.10 @ 10:00AM

our country won't have a damned future if idiotic, un-scientific, Marxist motivated crapola like "cap and tax" were ever to be rammed down our throats. You wanna "live green"? Then re-locate to Cuba, and saty the fuck out of my country,my freedom and my paycheck.

daddio| 8.2.10 @ 12:35PM

If this passes and industry moves offshore to less restrictive climates as it is now, and the massive increase in unemployment occurs, who will buy all of the stuff manufactured offshore? Not us, we're all out of work. Not the folks in other countries either, as they will still be as poor as they are now. Instead of bringing them up to our level of prosperity, it seems this is designed to bring us down to theirs.

Stan REdmond| 8.2.10 @ 9:40AM

Stack the court with leberals and have a 6-5 decision from SCOTUS declaring global warming a constitutional crisis and the problem is solved. Legislation is so 18th century.

SteveA| 8.2.10 @ 9:58AM

Hey Lian, why don't you go ahead & lead the way for me. Go out & buy a piece of junk Volt & plug it in your garage, turn your thermostat up to 78, go paper not plastic, vegan, hemp clothes & 2 square of toilet paper with led lighting. I plan on driving my SUV home, cranking down the AC & turning on all the lights & burning my trash in my outdoor fireplace. Perhaps you can offset my activity...

Ken (old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 11:13AM

Go for it Steve.

You might click the link on Lian's post. He is smply an arch Greenie...making money off of Liberal guilt.
Screw him.

Dan| 8.2.10 @ 11:25AM

Iain and Roger misunderstand the carbon cap and trade system as a tax. That is absurd. In fact, it's a market.

The bill recently passed over in Congress would have placed a value on carbon emissions through scarcity - the cap - and distributed credits among utilities and manufacturers to sell and trade, while gradually winding down emissions. In fact, in the first period of cap and trade those credits would have been given away as a baseline, not sold to raise money that would be shipped overseas for clean energy jobs.

The best hope for dealing with climate change at this point, as Obama and anyone understands, is not in the international process. While it's fine to be engaged, in the near term we will and should be developing our solutions internally to remain most competitive.

No doubt we should be developing our clean energy sector more than we are now. Currently, we are shipping $1 billion of our own dollars every day to other countries for dirty energy - gas, oil, etc. What are these other countries doing with our money? In many cases, ironically, they are developing their own clean energy sectors. Why? Because they understand what is coming.

So why are we the consumers paying to reform and improve other countries' economies every time we pull up to the pump? It doesn't make sense. Cap and trade is not only a vital market based solution, it is the most beneficial.

Doctor Right| 8.2.10 @ 12:03PM

Dan:

You're an idiot. On many levels.

In the first place, like a good little sheep, you've bought into the scam that is now called "global climate change". That alone puts your intelligence, if not your ability to read and think critically, into question.

Secondly, your knowledge of economics is questionable at best. "Cap-n-Trade" is NOT a "market". Markets are first and foremost voluntary; does the phrase "free market" ring a bell??

Despite the talking points you've received from DAILYKOS or your college professors, "Cap-n-Trade", while not explicity a "tax", will impose MASSIVE new taxation on businesses and individuals to get them to curb their use of energy.

Using the power of government to enforce "preferred" modes of behavior is quite Stalinist...But you like it, right Dan?

Third, you decry the use of "dirty energy", but you fail to understand how "clean" energy is produced. Electricity in the USA is created primarily by coal-burning plants.

So Dan...genius that you are...If we impose draconian taxes and onerous regulation on the exploration and use of "dirty energy", and if that "dirty energy" is needed to create "clean energy", then what will happen to the usable supply of the clean energy??? And since we can't do away with "supply and demand", how much will the remaining supply of "clean energy" cost for the average citizen to access??

As Comrade Obama himself admitted, under "Cap-n-Trade", energy prices will sky-rocket. Maybe you didn't get the memo?

Finally, even solar-powered panels and "green energy" components require industrial methods of production...In other words, "dirty energy". Ever try to run a plastic injection-molder on wind-power, Dan?

Dan...You and you fellow Libtards are playing a dangerous game with our nation's economic security. In essence, know-nothing idiots such as yourself (and Obama) who've never worked real jobs, and who understand didly about economics are trying to run the lives of 300 million + Americans who see through your stupidity, and want no part of it.

You need to understand, Dan, that we will NOT go quietly into that good night of obedience to leftwing schemes that threaten our nation.

Do you understand what I'm saying, Dan? If not, let me spell it out for you:

The gloves are off. We've had enough of your shit, and we're not putting up with it anymore. If you and your idiotic schemes continue to threaten our economy, our security, and our freedoms, we will find you, and we WILL punish you.

2010 is just the beginning.

daddio| 8.2.10 @ 12:39PM

This is a very good point. Solar panels and wind turbine power plants are made from (in some measure) plastic, which is derived from oil. Many other parts are made in factories that require massive amounts of power to produce them. Much, much more power than could be generated by wind or solar alone. So unless we start generating power using old fashioned wooden wind mills with cloth sails, how are we going to generate "clean" power using dirty power? However, I wonder whether 2010 will really be the punishing event some here proclaim. There are a lot of idiots out there who vote. I hope it will change things, but I am not confident yet.

Doctor Right| 8.2.10 @ 1:04PM

daddio:

It's in the wind. A free people can only be pushed so far.

Personally, I support dividing the country into two equal parts, one liberal, and the other conservative.

Inside of 5 years, millions of refugees from the Liberal side would be trying to sneak over the border to our side...Problem for them is, we enforce our border security...Lethally, if we have to!

Dan| 8.2.10 @ 1:26PM

That is a good point @daddio. It should be noted that wind turbines also frequently use oil as a lubricant.

But the production basis for the technical elements is an aside, and does not determine the success of a renewable energy transition. For instance, there are non-oil based lubricants that can be used for wind turbines. Also, repurposed/aftermarket plastic has been used in the production of turbines.

I have not seen any evidence that production of solar panels and wind turbines (and other sources such as biomass, geothermal, and tidal) - have a greater net energy input than output. Can you share a link/source?

It's also easy to forget here all the low hanging fruit of GHG reduction - simple measures to reduce energy use, or make energy use more efficient. In some cases, retrofitting or renovating older buildings for great efficiency can result in a 70% reduction in energy use. This energy reduction could be eligible for credits under Cap and Trade.

daddio| 8.2.10 @ 2:13PM

"But the production basis for the technical elements is an aside, and does not determine the success of a renewable energy transition. For instance, there are non-oil based lubricants that can be used for wind turbines. Also, repurposed/aftermarket plastic has been used in the production of turbines."

First, I don't think we can simply shove the production of this off as an aside. How we manufacture these is of great importance. Yes there are synthetic oils etc, but aren't those based on biomass? Which presents it's own issues. So it is not something to be treated as an aside. Also, re-purposing plastics, etc., is a short term solution. When we stop manufacturing this material from oil, the supply will eventually dry up.

"I have not seen any evidence that production of solar panels and wind turbines (and other sources such as biomass, geothermal, and tidal) - have a greater net energy input than output."

I am not exactly sure what this means. My comment was that the factories that produce this material need adequate sources of power to do so. I am not confident that green energy is capable of doing so.

"It's also easy to forget here all the low hanging fruit of GHG reduction - simple measures to reduce energy use, or make energy use more efficient. In some cases, retrofitting or renovating older buildings for great efficiency can result in a 70% reduction in energy use. "

This is one point where we agree, and I think should be the initial focus of any efforts. There is simply too much waste as it stands now. But this is just conservation, not "green" technology. Anyone can and should be doing this in order to save money. I am not so sure about the 70% figure, or where that came from. Even if savings is only a third of that figure, it's still a win. So rather than concocting complicated tax schemes and rebates, etc. let's go for some common sense approaches that everyone can do.

I liken our energy policy to giving a carpenter a full tool chest and then telling he can only use a screwdriver and a hammer to build a house. Why not use all of the tools in our tool chest to create energy? Wind, solar, nuclear, coal, oil, geothermal, etc.? Use each of them where appropriate and most cost effective.

Dan| 8.2.10 @ 2:48PM

New generations of wind turbine are generating 10MW/yr, enough to power 300 homes on a single turbine, depending on placement. One recent analysis put energy returned on energy invested in wind turbines at 20:1 over the life cycle of the turbine which is pretty good. (http://www.eoearth.org/article/Energy_return_on_investment_(EROI)_for_wind_energy)

Not to say there aren't still issues with wind, but I like your carpenter's analogy @daddio. I totally agree that we need to assess all of the tools in our toolbox - efficiency, conservation, renewables, and, yes, even fossil fuels. Especially when it comes to making energy affordable in the short term, and strategically appropriate in the long term.

But we should not reject the idea of incentivizing efficiency, conservation, and renewables. There are three good reasons incentives based in carbon market are critical: One, major new technologies need investment to reach an economy of scale and become competitive.

Two, building a competitive market for clean technology in the US ultimately strengthens our place in the global economy, and creates jobs within our borders.

Three, incentivizing the use of fossil fuels has been the single largest source of their dominance over the last century. Consider the taxes invested in highways/roads, R&D on fossil based technologies, property zoning that results in energy inefficiency, local and state subsidies for placement of manufacturers and utilities, and general subsidies on the oil and coal industries overall. Then imagine flipping the coin, and offering those same incentives, but for renewables, efficiency, and conservation instead.

A truly comprehensive energy policy, incorporating a Cap and Trade program as an incentive generator could go a long way to actually reforming the energy sector AND reducing GHGs.

Doctor Right| 8.2.10 @ 3:04PM

"I have not seen any evidence that production of solar panels and wind turbines (and other sources such as biomass, geothermal, and tidal) - have a greater net energy input than output. Can you share a link/source?"

Link/source TO WHAT??

What is your question? Do you even understand what you're asking?

The point is NOT "net energy input/output". The point is that production and manufacture of wind turbines, soalr panels, and all the glass/metal/fiberglass/plastic parts that make a wind turbine/solar panel must still be made using "dirty" energy (your words, not mine) in factories large and small.

Under "Cap-n-Trade", the cost of the energy needed to make a wind turbine/solar panel will skyrocket. Companies will find it increasingly hard to afford to manufacture them, especially since hardly anyone wants to buy them, anyway.

In short, idiotic policies like "Cap-n-Trade" will ultimately kill the Golden Goose! (To understand why, Dan, you'll need to understand basic economics...Sorry!)

Steve A| 8.2.10 @ 11:34AM

Hey Dan, Wow, that sounds great. How bout I just forward the difference in my future utility bill to you & call it a "Market" instead of a tax & since you are so gung ho on it you can just pony that right up for me...& feel good about lowering the sea level at the same time.

Thomas| 8.2.10 @ 12:22PM

Though the stated purpose of Cap and Trade is to limit "greenhouse gasses", including CO2, it is in practical outline simply a way for the federal government to control industry and generate revenue. As a practical matter, it would force companies to either pay the government to operate their business with current technology, or to invest heavily in new technology to prodice alternate energy sources, all of which are far less efficient than the current energy producers, petrolium, coal and natural gas. This raises the operating costs of the businiess, especially electrical producers and those costs have to be recouped. Guess who they are recouped from. That;s right, boys and girls, the consumer.

What the proposed cap and trade bill would have done, as stated in the bill, would have been to generate from $50 billion to $300 billion dollars for the federal government. 10% of which would have been "returned" to affected business. 45% would have been earmarked offset utility increases for "low and middle income" families [whatever those are] and 45% would be used to fund development of new "green technology and to help foreign nations develop green technology.

As the amount of greenhouse gas emissions have to be reduced every year, this would necessitate the issuance of more federal allowances thereby siphoning more capital from companies producing these gasses. Which would, in turn, drive up the operating costs of these businesses every year and that would be passed along to consumers. And, the federal government is going to refund only 45% of those increased costs to consumers and then only to certain consumers. By my math, that means that consumer costs are going to show a net increase.

Even if "allowances" were "given away" to business for free, initially, that would still not reduce the consumer costs, as those allowances would not effect the current operating costs of the effected businesses. Free allowances would be a non-issue, initially, but as the emission limits decrease and further allowances must be purchased, those operating costs would increase.

Dan| 8.2.10 @ 1:09PM

Why would the utility prices have to increase unsustainably? The objective of the clean energy investment out of Cap and Trade is to build an economy of scale for renewables - that's why Cap and Trade is gradual and incremental - to prevent utility prices from rising unsustainably.

We should note that the true price of fossil fuels under a free market structure, unsubsidized, could be considered unsustainable. Estimates of cost/gallon of gas in an unsubsidized market start at $5.60. (http://www.icta.org/doc/Real Price of Gasoline.pdf). I see little demand from the anti-Cap and Trade crowd to eliminate these subsidies.

Incidentally, I couldn't find the portion of the bill that suggests using moneys from carbon credits to subsidize overseas renewables investment. Link/source/page number?

dw| 8.2.10 @ 2:47PM

You are nothing more than a complete idiot. Since the federal government is operating on borrowed monies per liberal economic philosophies the whole damn thing is nothing but a financial house of cards. There is no liberal entitlement program or contrived idea that has ever met any projected budget analysis or achieved its stated purpose. Massive budget over runs have been the only successful result of marxist idealism. Liberal financial programs are nothing more than giant ponzi schemes. This is just another liberal meme based on discredited science designed to further dismantle capitalism.
The only solution to our future energy concerns should be done in a financially responsible way in the private sector. And in the meantime we should be utilizing our domestic resoures unapologetically and with responsibility.
All these liberal talking points is nothing more than mumbo jumbo idiocy.

daddio| 8.2.10 @ 12:40PM

"Allowances given away to utilities will result in savings passed on to the consumer"

Ahahahahahahahahahahah!!! I've some beachfront property for sale in Kansas City for you!!

Old guy| 8.2.10 @ 2:30PM

Dan -
What precisely are these "allowances" which will be "given away to utilities" and from which pocket will they come?

Dan| 8.2.10 @ 2:57PM

I see your point @oldguy, it's a good question.

Allowances are essentially a currency form of carbon. They are not currently being accounted for. The scarcity produced by a cap on carbon emissions however, monetizes carbon emissions.

With the Cap and Trade bill under consideration, 85% of allowances are granted. Essentially, nothing changes right off the bat. But as companies trade allowances and carbon caps are lowered, we gradually see utilities and manufacturers reducing emissions due to the scarcity of allowances. If I'm a coal utility, and I've managed to reduce 200 tons of carbon emissions by investing in wind, I can put 200 tons worth of my carbon allowances on the market. A manufacturer finds themselves producing 200 tons more carbon than the previous year - they can buy my 200 tons. The extra money I earn as the coal utility results in savings for my customers.

So there's no real "pocket here." It's a new market that produces incentives for carbon reduction.

Doctor Right| 8.2.10 @ 11:49AM

The certainty that "Cap-n-Trade" and "Global Climate Change" are absolute scams cooked-up by the "developing" world to soak the United States is evident by the proposed exemption of China, India, and Brazil.

IF these schemes are truly meant to stop the global threat caused by pollution, then you cannot accomplish this goal by exempting the world's 3 largest polluters!

Logically, therefore, something else is at play...Namely, the attempt by non-democratic, non-free market, command-controlled economies to use guilt to extort trillions of dollars from nations that produce wealth, instead of getting off of their lazy, fat, 3rd-world asses and producing wealth themselves.

This bill ("Cap-n-Trade") is detrimental to the economic health of this nation. It is, in essence, treasonous, and anyone who supports it with a vote in Congress is a traitor.

Left-tards be warned: There WILL be a reckoning.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 12:21PM

Doctor Right,
Once again your scapel hit the mark. Well said.

Steve A| 8.2.10 @ 11:58AM

Well Dan, I beg to differ. Your opinion is in direct contrast to your fearless leader BO who said: " Utility prices would necessarily skyrocket under cap & trade legislation." For once, I support him!:)
PS: The only other time I supported him was when he killed the fly in the interview.

Dan| 8.2.10 @ 12:45PM

I liked your PS! :)

But, yes, you are right - BO did say that. It is true - he said that utility prices would skyrocket. But luckily, he was referring to "his plan," pre-election which is now off the table, thank goodness.

The current bill passed in the house as it stands auctions off only 15% of credits, establishing a baseline resulting in a potential increase in utility costs, offset by tax cuts and reimbursements also in the bill.

We should note the incentives for keeping our economy addicted to fossil fuels in the first place. Fossil fuels, as it turns out, are not so popular simply because they are affordable and efficient, but in part because they are propped up massive subsidies - to the tune of over $4 billion a year. (Note also that oil companies turn around and spend $350 million/yr lobbying and buying off members of Congress). We should not stand for our tax dollars being used for such perverse incentives in a system that is supposed to be free market.

Doctor Right| 8.2.10 @ 1:14PM

Dan:

Once again...You're an idiot.

We are not "addicted" to fossil fuels. That's a fallacy driven (no pun intended) by libtards such as yourself.

The fact is that oil is not only the fuel that drives our cars, it's the fuel that drives the world economy, and there is NO viable substitute.

That's right...I said NO viable substitute.

The mere idea that wind power, or solar power, or electric power (which still needs coal-burning plants to be produced) could replace oil today and sufficiently meet our energy needs is a joke that may impress dimwitted college girls in your dorm, but it doesn't sell in the real world.

You lefties don't understand that the BEST way to develop clean, abundant energy is to deregulate the economy. In other words, take the breaks off of the entrepreneurial activity that, left to it's own devices (and if a "clean energy" market TRULY exists) would invent the ways and means to make it happen. Instead, as always, leftwing-nuts prefer hyper-regulation and enforced modes of behavior to achieve their stated goals - and they NEVER achieve those goals.

But the left is incapable of introspection, as they are incapable of modifying their stupid behavior. That's because leftism is not driven by facts, it's driven by pure ideology. For a leftist to admit that he/she is wrong, he'd have to admit that his ideology is wrong...

...And that never happens.

It's going to get ugly.

ThisOldMan| 8.2.10 @ 1:37PM

The only thing that's going to get ugly is people like you -- if it's possible to get any uglier than you already are, that is! Don't expect me to read your reply.

Doctor Right| 8.2.10 @ 2:56PM

Read it...Don't read it...

Who cares?

Just remember: We on the RIGHT are no longer cowed by the liars and deceivers on the left. We will not back down. We will tell it like it is.

If that's too much for you...Go cry to your mommy.

Steve A| 8.2.10 @ 2:03PM

Considering I pay 18.4c per gallon Federal tax on every gallon I pump, not counting state & local, I have no problem with the left taking those funds & giving a subsidy to the morons who want to drive a smart car or build a windmill. Just leave me alone. When you invent an F-150 that runs on seawater let me know. The left will find a way to justify a tax on that anyway, just watch.

Doctor Right| 8.2.10 @ 3:08PM

Since most Liberals are blowhards, their ratio of net energy input: energy output is completely out-of-balance.

Therefore, a truly "comprehensive" national energy plan would be one that seeks to restore this balance.

The only way to do this is to eliminate Liberals.

...Is there a downside..?

dcd| 8.2.10 @ 3:30PM

While energy policy is on people's minds, how about getting rid of the massive subsidies benifiting fossil fuels?

Dan| 8.2.10 @ 3:37PM

YES! With global fossil fuel subsidies estimated at over $500 billion annually — 12 times that of renewables — the lowest hanging fruit here is to reduce and eliminate subsidies for dirty energy.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/dnN9j5

What I'm curious about is whether people on this forum would be concerned with the inevitable increase in fossil fuel prices without subsidy? (Gas prices without subsidies have been projected at $5-$15/gallon). Would there be a solution there?

Pete| 8.2.10 @ 5:29PM

Increased supply perhaps? Maybe from our ample untapped domestic sources? But that doesn't fly in leftoworld, now does it? Far better to hamstring the economy by subsidizing an entire industry into existence in the name of fictionally reducing temperatures by less than a degree over a half century. Great idea. What a scam.

Louis Jenkins| 8.2.10 @ 3:45PM

Gasoline is still the best energy per production per gallon of anything on the market. A windmill was cranked up on top of a mountain near were I live, it ruined the TV reception and made a heck of noise. They had to shut it down. So explain to me, one more time, why we have to have windmills? It would take a wind farm the size of Conn. to produce what one nuclear plant produces. Plus, the wind doesn't blow all the time. Plus, when there was talk of setting up a windfarm off of Martha's Vinyard the greens protest that. Why?

dw| 8.2.10 @ 5:45PM

It was the Kennedys that killed that, pure and simple. It would have negatively affected their scenic veiw, resulting in a disturbing cosmic interruption of their ability to be at the forefront of hypocrisy.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.2.10 @ 6:17PM

Folks,
You have read me talking about an oil shut-down.

I just got a first draft of "Declaration of Free Men".
...a critical component of a novel, (fiction cautionary tale).
Whoah!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will give the author a chance to polish and craft it before posting it here...but save 20 dollars for the book.

emo| 8.3.10 @ 11:40AM

Conservatives are getting all terrified about a lame duck session. Nothing will happen

More Articles by Iain Murray

More Articles by Roger Abbott

More Articles From The Public Policy

Undoing the Brainwashing

May 22, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

May 17, 2013 | Peter Hannaford

After Obamacare

May 16, 2013 | Matt Purple

Looking Back — And Forward

May 15, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

Lies About Libya

May 14, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/02/we-need-a-mexican-standoff-on

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|146 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|79 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|30 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|23 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 9:33PM

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 9:12PM

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5:10PM

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:07PM

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 4:35PM

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 4:24PM

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 3:58PM

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 3:22PM

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.