Vote Against ‘Cap and Trade’
The IntelligencerIt is possible that the so-called "cap and trade" bill will be approved when it comes to a vote in the House of Representatives. If that happens it will be because some lawmakers did not vote in the best interests of their constituents.
Neither U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan nor Nick Rahall, both D-W.Va., had decided by Thursday how to vote on the bill, according to their staffs. Despite repeated attempts, our reporter was unable to learn whether U.S. Rep. Zack Space, D-Ohio, plans to vote for the measure - though he did so in committee.
Of West Virginia's three representatives, only one, U.S. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., had decided to vote against the bill. U.S. Rep. Charlie Wilson, D-Ohio, also has indicated he is "leaning" against the measure.
We are unable to comprehend why Mollohan, Rahall and Space have not committed themselves to vote against "cap and trade." It will be detrimental to hundreds of thousands of their constituents.
"Cap and trade" is formally known as HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. It is intended to limit emissions of "greenhouse gases." It would force many industries, including coal-fired power plants, to pay huge sums for emissions permits or to adapt their plants. Those costs would be passed on to consumers.Because our states rely heavily - almost exclusively - on electricity from coal-fired power plants, "cap and trade" would cost all of us billions of dollars in higher utility rates. Area families would pay at least hundreds, possibly thousands, of dollars more a year for electricity. The new burden could force some businesses to close their doors.
It has been estimated that the cost of "cap and trade" to consumers would be about $646 billion during a 10-year period - though it could be much more. That cost would be borne almost entirely by West Virginians, Ohioans and others where coal is a primary fuel.
Initially, "cap and trade" emissions permits were to be auctioned off. But the bill has been amended so that only 15 percent of permits would be auctioned. The remaining 85 percent would be dealt out by the government - which has an obvious anti-coal bias. Beyond any doubt, politics would be part of the process of handing out permits.
It has been suggested that party discipline is a factor for some Democrat lawmakers attempting to decide how to vote on "cap and trade." Their party's leaders can hand out favors to representatives who go along with them - and can punish those who do not.
But members of Congress are in Washington to serve the people of their states - not their party leaders. If Mollohan, Rahall and Space mean to serve their constituents, they should make their opposition to "cap and trade" known - and should vote against the bill.
|
RockEReputation
|
|
|---|---|
|
06-22-09 4:12 PM
|
800 tons of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere every second...but the science is settled..because the atmosphere is just so gigantic. see this ****: // know-the-number. com by omitting the three spaces in the URL
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-22-09 12:10 PM
|
I think that is the point. The problem is that politics has gotten involved with science. There is much pollution, but I don't buy the man made warming garbage. I also don't buy the increases taxes to stop the problem while being in bed with a corrupt UN. If the EPA was so worried, why not buy scrubers for companies, instead of paying over 10 million as a result of internal embezzlement that came to light last year? I always ask questions. If we all asked logical questions we would come to the truth, and the truth is that our government apparently does not believe in global warming, which could end the world "according to government", becasue they would pull out all the stops. Occams razor states that removing crap, by asking questions, will allow the most basic kernel of truth to be known. The truth is it is not about global warming, it is about politics and corruption.
|
|
RockEReputation
|
|
|
06-22-09 11:30 AM
|
This editorial, as well my comments to it, addresses cap and trade as it relates to pollution emitters. If you choose to not accept or be knowledgeable of or even comprehend discussion of said topic, opting instead to interject abortion, the UN and global warming, then perhaps you should just sit tight and wait for editorials on those topics. This one deals with cap & trade.
|
|
Graysongs
|
|
|
06-22-09 10:23 AM
|
RockE - Some follow this "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" religious mantra over anthropogenic climate change. Of course, it used to be "global warming" but when the facts of global temperatures showed that to be demonstrably false, it was necessary to come up with a new name for the dogma.
|
|
RockEReputation
|
|
|
06-22-09 9:58 AM
|
as stated...strawman mentality, do some research before you babble forth within your mundane, repetive, shallow views Diagnosis of asthma afflictions are increasing dramatically, and prominently among children. As well, the facts in wonderwhy's 06-21-09 10:10 PM post. As a CO2 denier, you disagree with my views..as a blatant S02/metal particulate denier, you dude, are truly the epitomy of a mental midget among lesser mental midgets.
|
|
Graysongs
|
|
|
06-21-09 10:40 PM
|
RockE - It was you who started this "for the children" nonsense. The wanton and widespread murder of more children each day in our country alone than your UN's assessment of the whole world's losses of children over the course of a year makes you little statement moot and ridiculous. Follow the money.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
06-21-09 10:10 PM
|
why do we beleive in ozone layer holes, polluted streams and rivers, bad air quality for our lungs and other health issues, and then not think that it could effect teh entire planet. the pollution in the oceans have changed the makeup of the dying coral, the polluted rivers have added trace chemicals to our dna, wv has bad air and water, health, but you seriously don't thin it could have a global effect. LA., SLC. ,massive undesirable air. don't make it poitical, make it important to know the truth.
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-21-09 8:58 PM
|
Thebudman, I respectfully disagree. Look at prop 21, which specifically calls for the development of 3rd world countries, with cap and trade money. Where will this money come from? Us, you see, including other developed countries. I actually am for helping other countries, but the UN is a corrupt pit of snakes. Read about Annon and the oil for food scandle.You see it it easier to steal money if it is constantly moving and changing hands by programs to, "help the poor". In this scenario nobody gets helped, but the politicians!
|
|
WVEXPAT
|
|
|
06-21-09 8:47 PM
|
If some people would offer intelligent counter points instead of continually whining about the editor it might help us unread, NR followers reach a conclusion.
|
|
RockEReputation
|
|
|
06-21-09 6:46 PM
|
yea gray - enter the strawman abortion tactic..quite intellectual on your part.
|
|
TruthSeeker
|
|
|
06-21-09 6:23 PM
|
A lot of you people should do independent research on cap and trade. If you do, you will come to very different conclusions than those of this "news" rag.
|
|
Thebudman
|
|
|
06-21-09 12:44 PM
|
robo All I'm saying is when you watch the evening news, with Katie, Brian, & Charlie, they only speak of CO2, new memtioning the redistribution of wealth to the UN.
|
|
Graysongs
|
|
|
06-21-09 12:13 PM
|
RockE - Government, and most especially the UN thugs, are interested in ways to dupe enough fools into giving over their money. "For the children" What a load! Over 3000 EACH DAY die violently at the hands of murder for profit outfits, but lefties are only concerned about some smokestack problem and how they can tax it.
|
|
vietnamvet
|
|
|
06-21-09 12:11 PM
|
Both U.S. Rep. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall will vote party line and against the the people of WV.
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-21-09 12:09 PM
|
Is the only issue? READ THE UN WEBSITE!.
|
|
Thebudman
|
|
|
06-21-09 10:21 AM
|
To the people pushing this legislation, CO2 is the only issue. That's all that's ever mentioned. As for the SO2 & heavy metals generated, it would seem the solution to that problem would be to require all new power plants to comply with a new set of emission standards. Much the same as is what is now required of the auto industry.
|
|
RockEReputation
|
|
|
06-21-09 9:50 AM
|
"AlGoraphobia" aside, the real issue isn't CO2, but the heavy metals and SO2 particulates generated by ancient utility plants operating at capacity overload. Asthma cases are accelerating rapidily and at least 3000 child deaths per year are attributed to manmade particulates. The time is over for half-heartedly penning of soft, makeshift legislation that features deadline extensions just to appease corporations. Then again, there's the FOX side on it! "There is no argument that smog can be very unpleasant..on some vulnerable parts of city populations .. these people are flippantly referred to as elderly, urban, and asthmatic joggers".
|
|
WVEXPAT
|
|
|
06-21-09 8:54 AM
|
I was reading an article about Geophysicist David Deming. He cited the following facts; • There has been no sea level rise for the past three years • Hurricane, typhoon and tropical cyclone activity is at a 30-year low • Satellite data don't indicate global warming but temperatures about the same or even lower than they were in 1979 • Mean global sea ice is at the same levels as it was when monitoring began that same year. The mere fact that proponents of "Global Warming" have had to remake themselves into proponents of "Climate Change" greatly weakens their argument. Let's continue and improve our efforts to reduce pollution and be good stewards of our planet, but not via the "Cap & Trade" tax scam!
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-21-09 1:14 AM
|
Financial and cost evaluation 9.32. The Conference secretariat has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities under programme area A to be about $640 million from the international community on grant or concessional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and financial terms, including any that are non-concessional, will depend upon, inter alia, the specific strategies and programmes Governments decide upon for implementation. 9.33. The Conference secretariat has estimated the average total annual cost (1993-2000) of implementing the activities of the four-part programme under programme area B to be about $20 billion from the international community on grant or concessional terms. These are indicative and order-of-magnitude estimates only and have not been reviewed by Governments. Actual costs and financial terms, including any that are non-concessional, will de
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-21-09 1:11 AM
|
9.24. Governments at the appropriate level, with the cooperation of the relevant United Nations bodies and, as appropriate, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and the private sector, should: (a) Ratify, accept or approve the Montreal Protocol and its 1990 amendments; pay their contributions towards the Vienna/Montreal trust funds and the interim multilateral ozone fund promptly; and contribute, as appropriate, towards ongoing efforts under the Montreal Protocol and its implementing mechanisms, including making available substitutes for CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances and facilitating the transfer of the corresponding technologies to developing countries in order to enable them to comply with the obligations of the Protocol;
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-21-09 1:11 AM
|
Here are some requirements on the UN site. Notice the parts where they require payment. Any American who thinks this isn't a scam needs professional help!
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-21-09 12:59 AM
|
This translates to tax US citizens to give money to other nations!
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-21-09 12:58 AM
|
This is from their site Asked about the prospects of the United States becoming a full partner in climate change efforts, he said that there was already a huge amount of action on the part of American cities to create cap and trade regimes. Industry, as well, had been requesting clarity on regulation planning so that it could make the right investments in infrastructure. In addition, both United States presidential candidates were committed to fighting climate change through an international process, through cap and trade schemes, and through reaching out to developing countries.
|
|
robojock
|
|
|
06-21-09 12:56 AM
|
Here is the real kicker. Go on the UNs website and search for where that cap and trade moeney is going. It is going to third world nations as a benfit, because they have not contributed to the global warming fake science.
|
|
Thebudman
|
|
|
06-20-09 11:40 PM
|
While the government collects huge sums of money in the form of taxes, all our mfg jobs and coal will be going to China where they pollute at will. The only winners here are the bureaucrats in Washington who add to their power. And of course, Al Gore and those that have invested with him to develope and market the software needed to track the carbon emissions.
|