The Objective of Cap & Trade

November 9th, 2009 |

The objective of the Cap & Trade Tiger Team is to educate, inform, and entertain concerns regarding all bills regarding or associated with any and/or all bills associated with government-managed energy. We have provided videos, scripted information, data, biases, and links in the following areas:

Questions and Answers

Global Warming Debunked
Renewable Electricity Standard
Cap on Greenhouse Gases
Trade of Emission Permits
Renewable Energy
Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

(House Bill 2454)

Kerry-Boxer Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 1733)
Sustainable Development
Updates

WHAT IS CAP-AND-TRADE?

Cap-and-Trade refers to American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 that was created to control “alleged” human-caused global warming by: (1) creating a renewable energy standard; (2) putting a “cap” on greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide); (3) authorizing “trade” of emission permits; and (4) mandating through-the-roof expensive and logistically unfeasible renewable energy utilization by our power plants.

The Beginning

Reaching its crescendo in 2006, there has been considerable hysteria regarding global warming. The unproven concept of global warming was thought to be due to increased “greenhouse gases” (e.g., carbon dioxide emissions) due to—“man’s blatant disregard and excessive use of fossil fuels.” Fossil fuels include gasoline for transportation, coal and natural gas for electricity, and industrial manufacturing of goods.

Based on this imagined concept, there was a knee jerk reaction, and Congress concluded they must control our activities in order to—“save the planet.” To do this, Congress has proposed a tax on U.S. generators of carbon dioxide. This tax will, in turn, financially burden American businesses and U.S. citizens.

Since the global warming nightmare was conjured up, the science of “global warning” has been debunked. Yet, still Congress forges ahead. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 , H.R. 2454, passed in the House on 26 June 2009 and has gone to the Senate. It is not clear whether it will or will not pass the Senate. What is this insanity?

The Last Straw

Even more egregious, the U.S. Congress wants to force expensive, laughably unattainable renewable energy on “we the people.” The ideologs’ insist solar and wind energy replace fossil fuel and nuclear power sources. Yet, the cost for solar and wind is alleged by some to be four to ten times that of fossil fuels and nuclear energy sources.[1] In other words, if your monthly utility bill is typically around $200 for coal-fired electricity and this were to be converted completely to wind and/or solar, your monthly utility bill would be $800 to $2,000. However, due to their limitations, total conversion to wind and solar energy is not possible. But make no mistake—your utility bill will go up!

[1] Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery. Unstoppable Global Warming—Alternative Energy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York, 2008. p. 239.

The Premise of Absurdity

Not only are the cap-and-trade mandates are not achievable, but the entire program is based on the false premise that global warming is caused by man. And beyond the ridiculous premise bought in to by our government, the U.S. Congress has the temerity to demand that the American people can control Earth’s climate!

WHAT IS MAN-CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING?

The Waxman-Markey bill, aka “Cap and Trade”, is clearly a monster piece of legislation that President Obama states will send our utility bills skyrocketing and have a major impact on every aspect of our lives. Listen to what he said during the Presidential primary.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/

What is the basis for such a radical change in our economy? The foundation for “Cap and Trade” can be found in the concept of “global warming” which came into prominence with Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Global warming, defined as an overall increase in world temperatures that may be caused by additional heat being trapped by greenhouse gases, was claimed to be caused by man. And Public Enemy #1 in causing that global warming was identified as carbon dioxide, which, coincidentally, is used by plants during photosynthesis.

Although plenty of school children have had nightmares over Al Gore’s dire predictions, cooler heads in the scientific community are beginning to prevail. Why? Because there are LOTS OF PROBLEMS with the theory of global warming. Here are just a few.

Problems, Problems, Problems

Problem #1 Man-made Global Warming Claimed Where There is Actual Global Cooling

Most people have seen or heard of Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”. It’s a pretty scary movie, with predictions of rising sea levels, increasingly ferocious hurricanes, and melting of the polar ice caps- all caused by man-made global warming. The truth is that scientists are not very good when it comes to long-range climate forecasts. Just 35 years ago, in fact, the fear was…. global cooling!

Don’t believe it? On April 28, 1975 Newsweek magazine published “The Cooling World” which states that:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Problem #2 Faulty U.S. Temperature Records

The official temperature records of the United States are collected through a network of about 1200 measuring stations under the direction of the National Weather Service. It would be nice to count on the data being accurate. Sadly, it is very unreliable.

In a large volunteer study spearheaded recently by Anthony Watts, almost 90% of the stations had serious problems that resulted in significantly inaccurate temperature measurements. All too often, the thermometers were found near or on asphalt or concrete (e.g. at airports), close to air conditioner heat exchangers, or at wastewater treatment plants where heat is generated during waste digestion. The researchers also discovered that if the data for a particular month wasn’t complete, a data algorithm would be used to “create” the missing data.

If we’re supposed to believe the planet is getting warmer, we need to have confidence in the temperature data. If the data is not reliable, can you really believe the dire predictions of the global warming advocates? Anthony Watt published his study in “Is the U.S Surface Temperature Record Reliable?”

http://www.surfacestations.org

You may download the entire report and see photographs showing the locations of some of the monitoring stations. A picture is definitely worth a thousand words.

Problem #3 Scientists Debunk Global Warming/Climate Change “Consensus”

Scientists all agree that there is global warming and that it’s caused by man, right? No!

The media and administration would have you believe there is universal agreement amongst scientists that global warming is happening and it is man-made. There is definitely NOT a consensus on man-made global warming. In fact, if anything, the tide is turning AGAINST man-made global warming.

The editor-in-chief of the prestigious American Chemical Society, Rudy Baum, recently figured that out when he claimed in a Chemical and Engineering News article that man-made global warming was getting more and more difficult to refute. Scientists were outraged.

Check out a few of the letters he received.

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: “Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?”

William Tolley: “I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.”

Scientists with the American Chemical Society are not the only ones refuting the claims of the global warming/climate change fanatics. World-wide, scientists are challenging the dire conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Although Al Gore and his global warming crowd have attempted to discredit these individuals, their credentials speak for themselves, as you can see in the recent book, “The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so.” by Lawrence Solomon.

Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences—demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO₂.

Even the United States Congress has thrown cold water on the theory of man-made global warming. On 11 December 2008, a 255-page report was published: “U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims“.

On 5 July 2009, news releases announced “The Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks!“ and continued to state that “the latest global averaged satellite temperature data . . . reveals yet another drop in the Earth’s temperature. This drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled 0.74 °F since former Vice President Al Gore released ‘An inconvenient Truth’ in 2006.”

Keep up to date on the latest in the global warming/climate change mythology here.

Problem #4 The New Operative Word: Climate Change

Now that you mention it, I don’t hear the phrase “global warming” much these days. Instead, I hear a lot about “climate change.” What’s up with that?

We haven’t heard much about global warming because it turns out lately the earth hasn’t been warming. In fact, it’s been cooling for the last 11-12 years! You just don’t hear much about it. But seek and ye’ shall find!

Check out Nashua Telegraph, July 17, 2009.

”As cap-and-trade advocates tie their knickers in knots over so-called “global warming,” Mother Nature refuses to cooperate. Earth’s temperatures continue a chill that began 11 years ago.”

“Earth’s temperatures fall even as the planet spins within what global-warmists consider a thickening cloud of toxic carbon dioxide.”

It seems the temperature of our planet may be related more to solar activity than anything mankind is doing. When the sun is active, it’s hot and so is our planet. When solar activity is low, as it has been for the last decade, the sun cools down and so does our planet. This type of “climate change” has been going on for centuries.

Problem #5 Unintended Consequences

A major problem with the radical environmental movement, of which global warming/climate change is a part, is that it so often runs smack into the law of unintended consequences—by influencing legislation to correct one “problem,” they wind up creating another.

Twenty years ago, for example, California responded to pollution requirements in the Clean Air Act of 1990 by dramatically increasing the concentration of a gasoline additive— methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Although it did reduce automobile pollution, MTBE had an unintended consequence. It is showing up in the groundwater. Why? Underground tanks at gas stations sometimes leak and gasoline sometimes spills from overflow. In the final analysis, Californians now have to worry about another potential carcinogen in the drinking water.

Here’s a more recent unintended consequence. No doubt you have heard about the wonderful cost savings of changing all of your energy guzzling incandescent light bulbs to compact fluorescent light bulbs. But have you heard that those energy saving fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury?

Now, go to the government website that describes both types of light bulbs. At the bottom of this web site is a link where you can get the Environmental Protection Agency’s recommendations for recycling and responsibly disposing of fluorescent light bulbs at the end of their life cycle. Here’s a hint—don’t pick up a broken one with your fingers and throw it in the trash!

Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

This culminates with unintended consequences.

Common Sense Conclusion

If you’re at a point where you don’t know what to believe about global warming/climate change, congratulations. Read and question that which just simply doesn’t sound correct. A touch of common sense and a hint of skepticism will most likely lead you to the conclusion you cannot deny. There is no “man-made” global warming!

Fun Quotes

“You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?” Mark Johnson of WEWS-TV

“I’m not sure which is more arrogant—to say we cause [global warming] or that we can fix it.” Mark Nolan of WEWS-TV

“So, to defeat so-called “global warming,” there is no need for the $864 billion Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Kyoto Protocols, elaborate new regulations, or United Nations guidelines. Instead, let the cold times roll.”

Nashua Telegraph, July 17, 2009

RENEWABLE ELECTRICITY STANDARD

The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 creates a renewable electricity standard that will require large utility companies to convert an increasing amount of their electricity to renewable energy.

Note that not all of the “qualifying” renewable energy sources provide clean energy. Imagine that! I thought the U.S. Congress was trying to save the planet by mandating clean energy!

Qualifying renewable energy sources are limited in scope. The cap-and-trade bill only allows for:[2]

2Waxman and Markey: H.R. 2454. Section 610. pp. 21-22.

Wind energy
Solar energy
Geothermal energy
Biomass
Marine and hydrokinetic energy
Hydropower projects (built after 1992)
Biogas and biofuels (derived exclusively from renewable biomass, landfill gas, wastewater-treatment gas, coal-mine methane)

The bill has a phase-in schedule for commercially-supplied electricity. At the present, solar and wind power provides “less than 1 percent,” and the U.S. Congress is pushing wind and solar energy. The phase-in schedule is as follows:[3]

3 Waxman and Markey: H.R. 2454. Section 610. pp. 28-29.

By 2012—6 percent
By 2016—13 percent
By 2018—16.5 percent
By 2020—20 percent

“CAP” ON GREENHOUSE GASES

The Cap and Trade Bill places a “cap” on greenhouse gas emissions, requiring high-emitting industries to reduce their output to U.S. Congress mandated levels or pay the price!

The Evil Emitters

Let there be no question, the bill will impact all manufacturing industries. Manufacturing that will be directly impacted will include 85 percent of all manufacturing, including everything from steel manufacturing (e.g., building and road construction) to plastic injection molding (e.g., plastic containers). The cap will also directly and/or indirectly impact the manufacture of beverages, food, and clothing—many products that you use on a daily basis.

Utopian Goals for “Saving the Planet”

Emission caps will start in 2012 and will be completely phased in by 2016. The goals are a reduction schedule in the documented 2005 greenhouse emissions:[4]

4Waxman and Markey: H.R. 2454. Section 702. pp. 366-367.

By 2012—3 percent
By 2020—20 percent
By 2030—42 percent
By 2050—greater than 83 percent

The Devil is in the Greenhouse Gases

According to the bill, greenhouse gases are more than just carbon dioxide. The definition includes:[5]

5 Waxman and Markey: H.R. 2454. Section 711. pp. 383-384.

Methane
Nitrous oxide
Sulfur hexafluoride
Hydrofluorocarbons
Perfluorocarbon
Nitrogen trifluoride
Other anthropogenic gas designated as greenhouse by the Administrator (or whatever else the Administrator may choose to include in the list)[6]

6 Waxman and Markey: H.R. 2454. Section 711. pp. 385-386.

The greenhouse gases have been assigned carbon dioxide equivalencies. Carbon dioxide is the standard.

“TRADE” OF EMISSION PERMITS

In a cap and trade system, limits are imposed on the amount of greenhouse gases major emitters are allowed to release. Companies subject to the “cap” will be allocated an allowance for each ton of carbon dioxide equivalent released. These allocated allowances will be reduced annually, and if a company releases less than its allowance, that entity can sell its emission rights to the company whose emissions exceed its limit. In other words, companies whose emissions are too high can purchase emission credits from those who have managed to keep emissions below their allocated allowances. [6]

[6] Wolstencroft, Tracy R.: Private Wealth Forum—In My View. Goldman Sachs (March 2009). http://www3.goldmansachs.com/ideas/environmental-and-energy/goldman-sachs/low-carbon-world.pdf/

Another way to purchase rights to emission credits is through offsets. Offsets are financial instruments representing reductions in greenhouse gases. These reductions are in the form of planting forests, conversion to renewable energy, emission control systems (e.g., sequestration of carbon dioxide), and energy efficiency planners/product suppliers. Yet, promoters fail to acknowledge inevitable realities. For example, trees can burn, releasing carbon dioxide in forest fires. Solar and wind renewable energy are unreliable, geographically limited, and expensive. Sequestration sometimes fails, is often expensive and short lived, requiring constant monitoring and maintenance.

Ultimately, increased manufacturing and production costs will be transferred to those purchasing the products. Products include clothes, food, home improvement goods, transportation gasoline, electricity, and just about everything you purchase, directly or indirectly. That means “We the People” will pay the price—all in the name of the “belief” in a debunked concept of man-inducted global warming.

Emissions Allowance Schedule

The EPA Administrator shall establish a separate quantity of emission allowances for each calendar year starting in 2012 at 4,627 million tons of carbon emission allowances and culminating in 2050 at 1,035 million tons. The 2050, the permissible allowance will have been reduced by 78 percent over that allowed in 2012. All carbon emissions in excess of those allowed will cost more money with the passage of time, and the increased price tag when the cap cannot be met will accordingly be passed on to the customer.⁷

7 Waxman and Markey: H.R. 2454. Section 721. pp. 405-408.

Offset Money Goes to Foreign Countries

Offset credits may be purchased from foreign countries. Offsets may be provided by the Wildlife Conservation Society which is a 750,000 acre wilderness preserve in Tierra del Fuego, Chile. Goldman Sacks is investing in E+Co which buys offset credits from developing countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. [6] The Chicago Climate Exchange will be trading offsets that include foreign countries as well (e.g., Korea Energy Management and Beijing Shenwu Thermal Energy Trading Co.). [8] In brief, the purchase of offsets is not limited to the United States. Our money does not remain at home. This is the Obama’s redistribution of wealth, American dollars going—to other countries.

[8] Chicago Climate Exchange: Members of CCX viewed October 19, 2009 at http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/content.jsf?id=64

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Wind and solar energy are the leftists’ utopia that has not undergone a reality check! Not only are these forms of renewable energy unreliable and through-the-roof expensive, but wind and solar power plants are limited in location and land availability.

Shifting to renewables will require the American people to sacrifice hundreds of millions of forest and wildlife acreage to convert the land to windmill farms, to solar panel farms, and crop farms for biofuels.8

8Singer, S. Fred, and Dennis T. Avery. Unstoppable Global Warming—Alternative Energy. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York, 2008. pp.246-247.

Renewable energy sources have been politically useful as imagined alternatives to the coal and nuclear power plants the leftists so deplore. Ironically, the very people who demand solar and wind power are the same who oppose it. The environmentalists insist on costly impact statements like, “How will the wildlife be affected?” The unions want a piece of the already expensive pie as well. An excellent example is the recent news video regarding objections to the construction of a Victorville, California solar power plant.

Solar and wind power are not reliable and require back-up power. Solar energy is available only when the sun is shining. Effectively, the sun must shine directly on the surface of the collection cells or heat reflectors. Wind power is generated only when the wind is blowing and, ideally, when it is blowing in excess of 20 mph. There are also top wind speeds above which the turbines must be shut off. An extreme example is the high winds generated in a hurricane.

Battery back-ups are limited, and the only reliable backup for emergencies is non-renewable power. This finds us back with the nasty fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Solar and wind energy require expensive transmission line conveyances which run about $0.9 to $6 million per mile, in today’s market, from the point of generation to the relay stations. In flat land soil (not rock), feeding a rural environment, a 100-mile stretch of line can may cost on the low end at $90 million. Whereas, in rugged, mountainous terrain, feeding an urban environment, a 200-mile stretch of transmission line can run upward around $1.2 trillion and take 5 to 7 years to install. If it takes only 1 year to build a solar plant, the electricity production must await installation of the transmission lines.

In 2007, United States power plants supplied 4.157 billion kiloWatt-hours of electricity.[9]

As of 2009, despite decades of generous financial incentives by local, state, and federal governments, less than 1 percent of all U.S. electricity is provided by solar and wind power.

9 Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. Energy Information Administration (January 21, 2009). http://www.ela.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html

Wind Generators

Wind-generators are large, obtrusive and aesthetically unpleasing. Neighbors are not going to want 125 foot plus windmills in their back yard, and already environmental groups are raising a stink about the windmills chopping up birds.

Wind-generators produce very little electricity per unit and require a lot of land. For example, the 2,000 megaWatt wind farm proposed in North Dakota will require up to 200 square miles of land. In order to build enough wind generators to supply 10 percent of all the 2007 power requirements, we would require an equivalent of all the land in Texas and California.

Solar Power

Solar power is extremely expensive, more so than wind-generators, and solar energy is location dependent. The further from the equator, the less intense the solar energy reaching earth. In other words, North Dakota will receive less solar energy than southern Texas. The result is considerably more cost for solar energy in the northern states than those in the south.

Solar power is weather and terrain dependent. Clouds, rain, fog, dust, and smoke blocks the suns rays. A perpetually cloudy place like San Francisco would not be a good choice of locations for solar cells. Trees, mountains, and hills obscure and block the sun’s rays. A tree limb could obscure 25 to 30 percent of the light that would otherwise reach the solar cells.

There are only 2 to 7 hours a day of usable sunlight—depending on solar positioning and time of year. But your electricity needs are for 24-hours. Well, now, where there is less available solar energy there is a need for more solar panels. In other words, you may require 3 times more solar panels in Main than in Texas. Likewise, the cost for solar energy in Main will be three times greater than in Texas.

Biofuels and Battery-operated Cars

The U.S. Congress is intent on replacing automotive use of fossil fuels with biofuels (e.g., ethanol) and battery-operated cars.[7] The land required for growing enough corn to produce sufficient ethanol-gasoline, required to accommodate the present 134 billion gallons of gasoline used each year, is projected to be at least 100 million acres of crop land. This is the size of all of California—with Hollywood and other buildings leveled to the ground for exclusive use as cropland. Of course, this is ludicrous!

Also, the battery-operated cars are encouraged. A recent Frankenstein’s motorcycle was created which operates on batteries only. Although it gets up to 200 mph, it can only go 60 miles before it must be recharged. You can get all this for a glorious $1,000,000.

WAXMAN-MARKEY AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2009

The cap-and-trade bill has its origins in the Lieberman-Warner Bill in the Senate in October 2007. This was also referred to as S. 2191 and America’s Climate Security Act. The stated purpose of the bill was that “Prompt, decisive action is critical, since global warming pollutants can persist in the atmosphere for more than a century.”

The intent of the bill was to cut U.S. industrial emissions of greenhouse gases in an effort to reduce the risk of “catastrophic global warming.” Congress called for “prompt, decisive action” even though there is considerable disagreement as to the level, cause, and consequence of global warming. In May 2008, Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced that more than 31,000 scientists had signed a petition rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming. The operative word is “human caused.” The bill was squashed. Although it never became law, the bill is still on the books.

In March 2009, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Energy and Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) of the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee introduced another draft in the form of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, House Bill 2454. It too has come to refer to it as the cap-and-trade bill which has, in turn, been endearingly appointed the more apropos title of cap-and-tax bill. The House draft has expanded Senate Bill 2191 with its stated purpose to “provide clean energy investment, energy efficiency mandates, a cap-and-trade program, and protectionist policies that would supposedly help the consumer cope with higher energy prices.”

KERRY-BOXER CLEAN ENERGY JOBS AND AMERICAN POWER ACT OF 2009

This bill is being referred to by the media as Cap and Switch. It was introduced on September 30, 2009 and referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Senate Bill 1733 was considered in committee and passed committee on November 5th.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Sustainable Development is the latest term to be used by the U.N., code meaning “save the planet” from man-caused global warming. It will be discussed and promoted at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Many have stated that it will radically change the entire world—economically and socially.

Lord Monckton claims that if President Obama signs the treaty, the sovereignty of the United States will be at stake. This must be stopped!

HOW WILL CAP AND TRADE AFFECT YOU?

Peter Orszag, President Obama’s budget director, told Congress last year, “price increases are essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program.” These price increases will be in the form of gasoline, electricity, groceries, home heating/cooling, and commodities. This is not a “tax.” It is an undercover assault on all people living and working in the United States.

People have attempted to put a number on this scheme. At this time, fiscal and job loss data is highly speculative. Credibility comes into play. So, we have attempted to identify reliable resources. Most of the data regards the cap-and-trade portion of HR 2454, not the cost of renewable energy and not the increased cost of gasoline for fossil fuels—operating your non-electric, non-biomass car, for ground/air transportation, and for farm equipment.

Just Looking at Texas

Passage of a cap-and-trade bill in the U.S. Congress will enlarge the federal budget, eliminate jobs, increase fuel, increase electricity costs, inflate the cost of food, clothing, household goods, and much more

According to the Texas State Comptroller, passage of cap-and-trade could cause.¹⁰

¹⁰ Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, REMI software, and calculations by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Elimination of 135,000 to 277,000 Texas jobs in 2012 while only creating 500 new permanent jobs. This is a net loss of 134,500 to 276,500 jobs in Texas alone.
A $1,136 increase in the cost of household goods and services for the average Texas household
Increase costs every time you fill your gas tank or purchase fuels for home use.
Increase food costs as yet unclear.
Increase cost of clothing, furniture, cell phones, electronics, diapers, shampoo, paper towels, school supplies, toys, etc.
Increase in health care costs due to increased electricity cost.
Decrease in funds available for enjoying life beyond paying household bills.

SPENDING CATAGORIES	YEARLY INCREASE IN COST *
Health Care	$230
Housing	$195
Groceries & Dining Out	$189
Gas & Auto Related Purchases	$130
Entertainment, Recreation & Travel	$109
Financial & Legal Services	$72
Household Expenses	$58
Clothing, Shoes and Accessories	$57
Furniture and Household Supplies	$55
Religious & Welfare Activities	$27
Education	$25
Personal Care	$16
TOTAL	$1,136

*Texas family has 3.4 people and is defined by the U.S. Census as two or more related people living in a household.

* Texas family has 3.4 people and is defined by the U.S. Census as two or more related people living in a household.

Projections: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, REMI software.

Calculations: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts

Across the Fruited Plain

Cap-and-trade will not only have a major overall negative impact on the state of Texas but also has major implications for American families and the economy all across the nation.

An analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill (as reported out of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce) by The Heritage Foundation found that:

U.S. unemployment will increase by around 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program and 2.5 million by 2035.
Total gross domestic profit (GDP) loss by 2035 will be $9.4 trillion.
The national debt will balloon as the economy slows, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt.
Families will suffer, also, as the bill will slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035.”[12]

12 William W. Beach, David Kreutzer, Karen Campbell, and Ben Lieberman, “Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for a More Costly Bill,” Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 2450, May 18, 2009, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2450.cfm.

13 David Montgomery et al., “Impact on the Economy of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (H.R.2454),” prepared for the National Black Chamber of Commerce by CRA International, May 2009, at http://www.
nationalbcc.org/images/stories/documents/CRA_Waxman-Markey_%205-
20-09_v8.pdf (June 24, 2009).

14 Warwick McKibbin et al., “Consequences of Cap and Trade,” Brookings Institution, June 8, 2009, at http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/
events/2009/0608_climate_change_economy/20090608_climate_change_
economy.pdf (June 24, 2009).

Heritage is not alone in its assessment. The National Black Chamber of Commerce[13] and the Brookings Institution[14] also project huge job losses. Select your state from this link to learn how legislation will affect energy consumers in your state:

President Obama’s Congressional Budget Office estimates:

In the lower income bracket, price hikes from a 15 percent cut in emissions would cost about 3.3 percent of their after-tax income every year—approximately $680 out of $20,600 after taxes for buying power of $19,920.
In the middle income bracket, price hikes from a 15 percent cut in emissions would cost about 2.9 to 2.7 percent of their after-tax income every year—between $800 and $1,500 out of their after taxes income.
Increased unemployment.

Many believe the former numbers are more detailed and more realistic. But no matter what way you cut the mustard—it’s not a pretty picture!

ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCING GREENHOUSE GASES WITHOUT CAP AND TRADE LEGISLATION?

As a matter geologic record, our earth has gone through cycles of climate changes from ice ages to vast tropical climates without any cars, coal generated power plants, or many other forms of CO₂ emitters, leaving the debate on man caused global warning in dispute. If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases, it is important to ask ourselves what are the alternatives to reducing greenhouse gases without Cap and Trade legislation?

Clean-Burning Natural Gas

Natural gas is an abundant, affordable and cleaner form of gas than crude oil or coal. It can be used to heat our homes, generate electricity and fuel our cars. This fossil-fuel is one of the most promising alternative fuels with the following advantage:

Nearly 87% of U.S. natural gas used is domestically produced
60-90% less smog-producing pollutants
30-40% less greenhouse gas emissions
Less expensive than gasoline

While natural gas has many advantages, there are also some disadvantages:

Limited vehicle availability
Less readily available than gasoline & diesel
Fewer miles on a tank of fuel
Infrastructure to transport natural gas to regions need to be developed

Nuclear Power

Nuclear power has been a proven form of energy production in both the United States and abroad for over 50 years. Some European nations rely on nuclear power for up to 80% of their electrical power generation.

Nuclear power is virtually pollution free in comparison to conventional forms of power generation such as goal generated power plants. It is also a reliable energy with long supplies. If the goal is to reduce greenhouse gases, then nuclear power is the best alternative fuel.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies the following average emission levels in the production of 1 MWatt-h of electricity (Pounds of Emissions per MWatt-h)
	Coal	Oil	Natural Gas	Nuclear
Carbon Dioxide	2249	1672	1135	0
Sulfur Dioxide	13	12	0.1	0
Nitrogen Oxides	6	4	1.7	0
Source: www.epa.gov/clean energy/impacts

Disadvantages of nuclear power relate to high costs of construction, potential for nuclear reactor meltdowns caused by loss of coolant water and waste disposal.

Many may remember the Three Mile Island incident in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, near Harrisburg in 1979 just 12 days after the release of the movie China syndrome which had many Americans on edge about nuclear meltdowns. This was a fearful time, but it is important to remember the safety systems did work preventing a disaster with little radiation being released at the nuclear facilities on Three Mile Island. To put the safety records into perspective, it is important to note each year 10,000 to 50,000 Americans die from respiratory disease due to the burning of coal, and 300 are killed in mining and transportation accidents. In contrast, no Americans have died or been seriously injured in American nuclear power plants due to a reactor accident or radiation exposure.

Waste disposal may be the most difficult issue related to nuclear power. The problem with solid waste from a nuclear power plant is not the volume of the waste, which is very small, but the special handling required for satisfactory disposal. Another issue is legally securing areas for nuclear waste disposal. The targeted burial site for spent fuels, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, has not yet been opened and has also been challenged in the courts. Ultimate disposal has thus not occurred for most spent fuels. Most spent fuels are now in temporary storage at the reactors where they were produced or in intermediate storage either at the reactors or alternative sites.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Throw everything you have at it! Be persistent with your district representative and senators. Go to town hall meetings, and let them know what you think. Study the issues and be prepared to ask intelligent, well-informed questions. Lock on and don’t let go. There are many more like you—of like mind. Stay positive knowing that “We the People” will prevail..

EDUCATE YOURSELF: Congratulations. You are on your way!

There are great conservative fact filled sources on the internet. Bookmark sources such as the San Antonio Tea Party website http://sanantonioteaparty.org and The Heritage Foundation http://www.heritage.org .
Go to the Library of Congress to find and read legislation. If your representative is not reading the bills, then you know they are not writing the bills so it is imperative Americans get educated and involved.
Watch legislative debates on C-Span in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate

GET INVOLVED

Get involved with local political groups such as your local Tea Party
Start your own group of conservatives to influence the political process
Show up and be heard at conservative rallies

FIND OUT HOW YOUR REPRESENATIVES ARE VOTING

Senate Voting Record http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm
House Voting Record http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/legvotes.html
Washington Post culmination of voting record link http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/

BE SEEN AND BE HEARD

CALL and WRITE your representatives

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Urge Your Senators to Support Sensible Energy Policies

http://partnershipforenergy.com/letter.aspx?AlertID=177

Attend town hall meetings and rallies
Invite your congressional representatives to speak to your group

VOTE: Exercise your most coveted American right, your right to vote!

WHERE CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?

Climate Change

www.climatedepot.com

www.sepp.org

Global Warming

Science and Public Policy Institute, March 2009.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mar_09_co2_report.pdf

Science and Public Policy Institute, Debunking the myths of man-made global warming/climate change.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Alternative Fuels and Reducing Greenhouse Gases

Natural Gas and the Environment

http://www.api.org/policy/environment/index.cfm

Read about Natural Gas and its uses, supply and demand, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

www.api.org/aboutoilgas/natgas/

Natural Gas Quick Facts

http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/natgas/upload/quickfacts.pdf

What measures is the oil and gas industry working on to reduce greenhouse gases?

http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/index.cfm

Find out about fuel alternatives for your car?

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bifueltech.shtml

Nuclear Power and the Environment

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuclearenvissues.html

Find out more about nuclear power generation.

http://members.tripod.com/funk_phenomenon/nuclear/procon.htm

Effects of Cap and Trade

Who Pays for Cap and Trade?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html

Cap and Trade Will Cause Electricity Costs to “Skyrocket” according to then Senator Barack Obama

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-ill-make-energy-prices-skyrocket/

What Cap and Trade Could Mean for the State of Texas

http://www.window.state.tx.us/finances/captrade/texas_impact.html

The European Experience with Cap and Trade

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst071009a.cfm

Research Energy Policy and Issues at Partnership for America’s Energy Security

http://partnershipforenergy.com/default.aspx