Tag Archives: cap and trade

Liberals Make Environmental Reform Impossible

Did you do a double-take on the title?  Well, it’s not a typo. Just like health care reform, climate reform isn’t being stopped by Conservatives, it’s the split left causing the stall.

While most lefties in Congress can talk-the-talk of curing global warming, they are putting together legislation that does little to curb emissions.  Similar to health care reform, politicians’ true desires are evident, and as Senator Boxer told AFP Blog, “There’s so much revenue that comes in from a cap-and-trade system that you can really go to a person in a congressional district and get enough votes there by saying, ‘What do you need? What do you want? You can really help them”.  Barbara Boxer is a co-sponsor of the new cap and trade climate bill and is showing the real reasons behind her desire to see a carbon exchange system – power.

Health care reform and climate reform seem inexorably-linked.  The liberal plans both do little to actually improve either issue and both give immense amounts of power to Congress.  Blue-dog, or Conservative, Democrats aren’t signing on to either of these two power-grabs.  This rift in the Democrat ranks is a sore point as not only could Barack Obama not unite both parties, he is actually creating a fracture within his own.

Solar FarmThe ultra-left is making its fight against “climate change” difficult at-best.  In Pennsylvania and Washington, liberal environmentalists killed planned windmill farms because birds kept flying into them (why aren’t sliding glass doors outlawed?) – ok, one strike for wind.  In California, leftie activists have now not only killed food farms in the San Jaquin valley, they have now managed to kill a massive solar power farm in … yes… the mojave desert.  If we can’t build solar in the desolate, barren reaches of a desert… where do they think we will build them?  Two strikes – down with solar.  Does this now make the ultra-left the “party of no”?

So between the elitist power-mongers like boxer and the ultra-lib enviro-freaks, they won’t be able to agree on any climate relief at all.  Conservatives would gladly look into solar fields, wind farms, and nuclear plants as is evident by their movement of “do it all” which means, oil, coal, nuclear, solar, and wind.   A responsible path is to continue the use of cheap fossil fuels (put a tyrannosaur in your tank), while we implement alternative options and figure out which ones work and which don’t.

The full on libs have now successfully curbed all of the possible alternatives to fossil fuels: nuclear, wind and solar.  If they want to return us to the dark ages , I have bad news for them.  We’ll continue burning dinosaurs if they  won’t allow a few salamanders to migrate to a new water source or birds to evolve into species that won’t fly into moving objects.

Or better yet… can we power our cars on salamander extract?

The Enemies Within

Just because someone is a Republican, does not make them conservative. It only makes them a politician. A few from New Jersey, and one from Maine are figuring that out.Cap and Trade

Senator Snowe from Maine, Representatives Lance (NJ), Smith and LoBiondo all resemble Rhinos (RINO) more than elephants. Political pets aside, all are voting in a non-conservative manner. They are all taking an anti-trade, anti-economy,anti-energy policy stance that will make it impossible for America to evolve its economy for the next century. They are helping the left Europize us by voting for a government-run carbon trade exchange. In another CDN post, we discuss the challenges that cap and trade presents to the American economy.

Some supporters of cap and trade would argue that someone has to lead the way, but China, India, and other Asian nations have no interest in controlling emissions.  By going first, we are going alone and following Europe into a money pit and fundamental power-shift.

A leader, running into opposition, with no one behind him, is not a leader – he is a victim.

Cap and Trade: A Crisis in the Making

With health care reform, racist czars, and the war in Afghanistan taking front-stage lately, the Waxman-Markey bill (H.R. 2454) which contains cap and trade has gotten little attention.  While the bill has several promising proposals for modernizing our power infrastructure and moving us towards more sources of renewable energy, there are considerable issues with the market-based pollution controls in the bill.  This bill has the potential to create a crisis without having the potential to solve the unproven issue that it seeks to remedy.

The battle between global warming “believers” and “deniers” is becoming more-and-more a battle between U.N. scientists and the rest of the scientific community.  According to a 2009 Wall Street Journal article there are more than 700 non-U.N. scientists who are challenging the U.N.’s opinions on global warming.  The original count of scientists that authored the U.N. climate summary was only fifty-two.

Without a true crisis to force the enactment of this bill, the administration has to show that there are real benefits to turning it into law.  The costs are evident, the benefits are tougher to come by.

The proposed benefit of a cap and trade system is that it will limit the amount of C02 put into the air by making it progressively expensive to do so.  While the bills supporters say that the bill won’t put any stress on the economy, one would argue that in order for it to work, it would have to put an undue strain on CO2 emitters or they would not cut emissions.

In reality, emitters would have to pass the strain onto consumers after simply purchasing or acquiring more credits.  Conservative members of Congress attempted to protect citizens from out-of-control energy costs by adding in triggers that would suspend the program if energy costs exploded, but all of these measures were defeated by liberals.  If the bill isn’t going to cause an explosion in energy costs, why defeat these safety measures?  They had to get those safeties out of the bill because they know that energy prices are going to increase by $1900/year per family in the next ten years and almost $7,000 per family per year in the next quarter-century (Heritage Foundation study).

If we look at countries that have implemented cap and trade systems, more reasons to be concerned about this legislation arise.  Britain has had this type of system in place for just a few years and the British Taxpayer Alliance estimates that each family has seen their energy expenses rise by about $1300/year.  What’s worse yet is that Britain’s carbon emissions have actually increased.

This kind of pollution control is actually a ruse.  It turns out that the looking at the EU, who has implemented such a system, we learn that it’s more about control of industry than control of CO2.  The New York Times published an article that said that said that the cap-and-trade system was like, “a grandfather with a large family deciding what to give his favorite grandchildren for Christmas,…”.  The permits for CO2 end-up being handed out as favors from those governments to the companies that have garnered the most favor with the ruling party.

Power.  That is primarily what Barack Obama and the liberals are after.  They’ve already taken over an insurance giant, one of the largest manufacturers in the United States, and now they need the rest of the free market to be less-free.  If a company gets out-of-line with the liberal’s wishes, they can force them to buy carbon credits on the open market.  If a company is doing as they are instructed, they might earn free credits from the government.

Although the current bill seems to focus on electricity producers, once successfully implemented as a mechanism to influence companies, their will be no end to who will be directly affected by this legislation.

This form of pollution control has implications that are much more dire than centrist control of the economy or electric bills going through the roof.  It might utterly destroy American company’s ability to compete in the global marketplace.  China and India have no reason to enact such reforms (China already has central control of industry).  That means our products will have higher costs (and therefor prices) without a matching increase in the demand for those products.  If we think 10% unemployment stinks, imagine what that number will look like when Ford, Toyota, General Mills, etc all have to move to India to compete.

It is also perceivable that this will create a new commodities market that large investment firms may jump into.  The Goldman-Sachs’s of the country will eagerly create complex carbon credit products to market to investors and give control of energy prices to a few giants of finance.

We’ve looked at will most-likely happen.  We could also look at governments that have been considering cap and trade systems recently.  In 2008, New Zealand suspended it’s weeks-old cap-and-trade system due to concerns of uncontrollable energy costs and no proven benefits from the countries that had already taken this delusional path.

For now, it appears that cap and trade is idling in the Senate ever since it marginally passed the house (219 votes for to 212 against).  The Democrats have started to criticize the bill as the renewable energy sections of the bill have become more watered down after going for mark-up in the Senate.  Conservatives are concerned that it is all cost with no benefit.  Only time will tell if this will ever see the light of day.

If You Like Your Country, You Can Keep It

Critical legislation is being drafted, reviewed, written about, praised, slammed, publicized and soon… voted upon.

Some of this legislation, Health Care Reform and Cap and Trade, has brought a groundswell of criticism from conservative Americans – soon after, criticisms of the criticism by liberals.

Why have conservatives suddenly become so aware, so vocal, so active?  Many conservatives simply understand that these bills represent the largest threat to the United States Constitution in history.  Not only do conservatives recognize that the systematic shredding of our nation’s framework is happening, they recognize their patriotic duty to prevent it.

First, certain amendments to the constitution make specific who or what should have certain powers when congress does not. The constitution purposefully limits the role of the federal government by saying in the tenth amendment :
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”


This amendment limits the federal government to only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  So how does the federal government have the power to run an automobile manufacturer, health care insurance exchange, carbon credit exchange, or the method by which companies unionize?  They don’t.

If we examine the enumerated powers of Congress in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Two paragraphs are most-often used to mistakenly justify congressional activities that should instead be allocated to individuals or the states.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

The most controversial part of this clause is not “general welfare” as many liberal policy-makers and supporters would have us believe.  Debating the definition of general welfare is unnecessary as this clause does not give Congress the power to provide for the general welfare, it qualifies the power to tax for such a purpose.  There is a key distinction that Thomas Jefferson made when he wrote, “They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose”.

So what is a constitutional method for laying taxes to provide for the general welfare?  Medicaid was enacted by having the federal government levy taxes without providing the actual service.  The States provide the service in a manner consistent with their ideologies and are supported by the taxing power of the Congress.  That is the only manner in which Congress has any authority over the welfare of citizens – to levy taxes.

Finally conservative leaders are starting to assert the principals present in our constitution in order to preserve our most precious union.  In Georgia, conservative members of the state legislature are seeking to challenge the health care reform legislation.  By asserting the tenth amendment, the state is making the case that since neither medical procedures, insurance nor pharmaceuticals are enumerated powers of the federal government, they must be left to the states or individuals and that the federal government can pass no laws that infringe upon those rights.  Several other states are considering or have passed “Sovereignty Resolutions” to strengthen their rights under the tenth amendment.

The arguments against conservatives are that they have not provided feedback into the legislation and are only saying “no”.  Of course they are just saying no, there is no way to constitutionally enact “the public option” in the health care bill nor the creation of a federal exchange for the sale and purchase of carbon credits that the cap and trade bill represents.

Any legislation that attempts to add to the powers of the federal government is an infringement on the rights of every American as afforded to us by the constitution.  Protecting state and individual rights is a much more important responsibility than enacting any federal entitlement.  We pray our conservative leaders have found this age-old responsibility to be of the highest priority.  The alternative is that the country we were given could be lost – or more concisely – taken from us.

Footnotes:
1 3 Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Library Edition, 1904)

Recent Entries »