Let the Cap & Trade Begin

[fizzissist]

June 15, 2009

Taxpayers Question Use of Public Funds for "Western Climate Initiative"

The Honorable Jon Huntsman
Governor
Utah State Capitol Complex, 350 North State Street, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-2220

Dear Governor Huntsman:

On behalf of the 362,000 members of the National Taxpayers Union (NTU), over 3,500 of whom reside in Utah, I write first to express our gratitude for your leadership in working to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent frugally and carefully in your state. I am also writing to you, as Chair of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA), to request information regarding WGA’s involvement, and use of taxpayer and other funds, in the direction and management of the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).

Specifically, we wish to inquire about the possibility that taxpayer dollars from states not supporting the WCI process, as well as federal funds, were used to underwrite this project against the wishes of several Governors. Our request is based upon recently reported information from Paul Chesser of Climate Strategies, Inc. Mr. Chesser is an investigative researcher with expertise in the field of organizational finances, and has been a professional acquaintance of NTU’s for some time.

As you may know, NTU has taken an active role in protecting taxpayer resources from abuse on behalf of big-government agendas. For example, in the past we have expressed concern that the National Association of Governors as well as the National Conference of State Legislatures were advocating on behalf of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) with the indirect assistance of tax dollars.

Although opinions on this initiative within your own organization vary, NTU views the SSUTA as a danger to tax competition and the beneficial policies that flow from this activity. We also agree with Thomas Jefferson’s opinion that “[t]o compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”..................

read the whole article at:
http://www.ntu.org/main/letters_deta...?letter_id=681

For all the money spent to date, the temperature has been reduced by how much??

[dynosor]

We are screwed now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/...s_climate_bill

"In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.
The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs."

[ViperTX]

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles — and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

This is rather funny...just thinking about it.....you reduce one sector while you build another sector....seems like a wash...you create millions of green jobs and eliminate millions of non-green jobs.

One thing about government....they sure know how to waste tax-payer dollars!

Paul

[ViperTX]

Oh, I just caught this...sounds like green-jobs.....right! Well, I suppose you will glow green.

And there was plenty to work on in a House-passed measure that pointed toward higher electricity bills for the middle class, particularly in the Midwest and South, as well as steps to ease the way for construction of new nuclear reactors, the first to be built since the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979.

Paul

[dynosor]

you reduce one sector while you build another sector....seems like a wash...you create millions of green jobs and eliminate millions of non-green jobs.

Actually, more jobs will be lost than created:

http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090...-renewable.pdf

"Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data1, we find

that for every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spain’s
experience cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence,
by two different methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs
on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created, to which we have to add
those jobs that non-subsidized investments with the same resources would

have created.

Therefore, while it is not possible to directly translate Spain’s experience with
exactitude to claim that the U.S. would lose at least 6.6 million to 11 million
jobs, as a direct consequence were it to actually create 3 to 5 million “green
jobs” as promised (in addition to the jobs lost due to the opportunity cost of
private capital employed in renewable energy), the study clearly reveals the
tendency that the U.S. should expect such an outcome."

[dynosor]

Or maybe not...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/...s_climate_bill

"If the proposal, which faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, were to become law, it could make it more expensive for people to heat, cool and light their homes;"

"This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence,"

"But Obama said the measure would cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp per day"


I guess they will just increase postage to make this true...

We are screwed now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090627/...s_climate_bill

"In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy."

[maz43]

The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles — and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.

Translation-
The bill will create billions in new taxes for these progressives to waste while destroying the job market and furthering government control over our lives.

What a deal!

[dynosor]

Pointed comment on "Everything you always wanted to know about the Waxman-Markey energy/climate bill"

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06...akdown#c178372

"2. A cap is in no way a "permit" that prevents pollution. In fact, it let's polluters keep polluting, all they have to do is trade away their emissions, or buy offsets, mostly in a third world country, where EPA will never be able to track what they are doing. In fact, the bill ALSO takes away EPA's ability to regulate GHG from smokestacks. While the U.S. Supreme Court ordered EPA to regulate GHG from tailpipes of cars, this bill in an industry give away, takes away EPA's authority to regulate GHG from smokestacks, and lets the industry "cap and trade" and offset its pollution under a scheme that is unenforceable.

3. The derivatives market that this bill sets up for trading of the "carbon credits" is EXACTLY like the sub-prime mortgage derivative market. It was modeled after that, in the days when it sounded like a good idea. The carbon trading derivative market set up under this bill presents a real and serious threat to our economy."

[fizzissist]

"This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence,"

"But Obama said the measure would cost the average American about the price of a postage stamp per day"


I guess they will just increase postage to make this true...

LOL! That's good.

Yeah, Obama, just the price of a stamp per day. I know the math is hard on one of our fellow posters, so I took the trouble of doing a quick rounded estimate of what kind of money we're talking about.

280,000,000 people times $.50 would equal $140Million/day in new tax revenue. That's $5.1 Billion a year.

How much temperature is "saved"?? According to Pat Michaels (another of those pesky skeptics who is a real climate scientist) the amount to 2050would be....

....Temperature “Savings” from Waxman-Markey U.S.; 0.04ºC

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...cise/#more-379

Assuming that the cost of a postage stamp would remain constant through 2050 (....I'll wait till the laughing stops...) the revenue would be, oh, let's round off some more, $5.1Billion/year x 40years = $204Billion.

Dividing $204Billion by .04 results in .....(drum roll)......$5.1 TRILLION/PER DEGREE C....

and we can't even make the half degree mark.

[Bubba]

LOL! That's good.



....Temperature “Savings” from Waxman-Markey U.S.; 0.04ºC

Yeh, from what I saw and heard during the hearings, we could have saved more than that from all the HOT AIR spewed out by the politicians. Come to think of it, if we could get all the politicians in the world to shut their big mouths for a week, we might have another ice age?

[pminmo]

The biggest exporter of jobs in the US is the federal government. Increase the cost of energy makes US goods and services more expensive, so in order to be competative US manufacturers send stuff to countries that are less costly to produce. Increase tax on business, same effect. If we could harness all the hot air spewed in DC, there would be no energy crisis. Just my 2 cents, which since Jan 09 has declined to 1 cent........

[fizzissist]

But now atmospheric pollution futures trading in the U.S. also exists for carbon dioxide (CO2) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) in a system gathering steam among environmental groups and corporations alike.

No Longer Free Goods

The foundation for today’s pollution futures market was laid by policymakers who believed that by extending property rights to environmental goods and making them sellable, new markets would be created.

Instrumental in realizing the potential of pollution futures is Richard Sandor, currently the Chairman and CEO of the Chicago Climate Exchange.

“Air and water are simply no longer the ‘free goods’ that economists once assumed,” Sandor said in a 1992 interview with the Wall Street Journal. “They must be redefined as property rights so they can be efficiently allocated.”

At a 2005 Milken Institute Conference, Sandor said, “The right to use water or air is more valuable than food, and we can use the price system to allocate that right.”

http://www.ejmagazine.com/2006a/futures.html