BHO's Cap and Trade Tax - Page 6 - Big Big Forums

***Willow*** · 07-07-2009, 06:57 PM

Obama

krisharry · 07-08-2009, 04:11 PM

You know I think our govts (fed, state, local) could use a lesson or two in finances. Like my dad always said, If you ain't got the cash, you ain't got the cash. In other words, if you don't have the cash in your pocket to buy it, you can not afford it. Simple really, the govts can start cutting back chit like all the rest of us have had to in order to make ends meet. Just ridiculous.

Jolie Rouge · 07-08-2009, 05:44 PM

July 08, 2009
Must Read: Cap and Trade POS and Your House

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/198094.php

Seriously I wasn't going to blog today, but this just has to be read and read now.

Quote:

Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state.

See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.

Read the rest.... http://www.americanissuesproject.org...ction-304.aspx

Hat Tip:
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2009/07...cap-and-trade/

Yet Another Reason to Hate Cap-and-Trade
By Jimmie on July 8, 2009

My post today at the American Issues Project deals with a rumor I’ve seen making the e-mail and blogging rounds. It says that if you own a home and want to sell it, the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill would require you to have your house inspected to make sure it meets a certain energy-efficiency target and, if it doesn’t make it, to bring it up to code before you sell it.

As it happens, the rumor isn’t very far from being true. It’s both not quite as bad as it could be and far worse.

What that’s saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill.

By now, if you haven’t swallowed your tongue and are in need of medical attention, you’re probably wondering if there’s a penalty for not being in compliance with the new efficiency ratings. The answer is no, and yes. Here’s where the bill gets really sneaky. So far as I can tell, there is no direct penalty if your house does not meet the bill’s target. However, it does require that the number of buildings inspected by the state meet certain percentage targets and if they do not, the state loses out on a significant portion of the money it could get from Washington. In other words, the bill demands certain things from the states, but ties funding for those demands to compliance with the demands. http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111...nid=t0:rh:2114

Did I say the bill gets sneaky? I was wrong. The bill strong-arms the states like a couple mob heavies leaning on a witness in a Rico trial. In turn, the states are going to put the screws to you, so it gets the billions of dollars Washington is dangling in front of them. So while the Federal government won’t directly punish you, it will provide the states with lots and lots of rectangular, green reasons to do so.

Please read the whole thing and be sure to leave a comment when you do!

Jolie Rouge · 07-08-2009, 06:39 PM

July 08, 2009
Cap-N-Trade: Your House Is Not Your Own--UPDATED

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/..._is_not_yo.php

If you live a normal life, or you're a Congressman or Senator, you haven't read the Cap-N-Trade bill, but intrepid Jimmie Bise has and what he found was distressing on so many fronts. First the pain for home builders, an already destroyed industry here in the United States. From his latest AIP column: http://www.americanissuesproject.org...ction-304.aspx

Quote:

Let me introduce you to a little section of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill called the "Building Energy Performance Labeling Program". It's section 304 of the bill and it says, basically, that your house belongs to the state. See, the Federal Government really wants a country full of energy-efficient homes, so much so that the bill mandates that new homes be 30 percent more energy efficient than the current building code on the very day the law is signed. That efficiency goes up to 50 percent by 2014 and only goes higher from there, all the way to 2030. That, by the way, is not merely a target but a requirement of the law. New homes must reach those efficiency targets no matter what.

Consider this for a moment. Right now, at this writing, there is a glut of new home supply. Will those homes have to be retrofitted to meet the government's 30% more fuel efficient standards? And how does one magically do this? Already, homes are being built with air-tight windows, special insulation, more efficient air conditioners, etc. What would make it more energy efficient?

And then there's you and me, the average American home owner. The government wants to control your life via your home, too:

Quote:

But what does that have to do with current homeowners like you?

Well, I'm glad you asked.

You're certainly not off the hook, no way, no how. Here's what the Democrats have planned for you. The program requires that states label their buildings so that we can all know how efficient every building (that includes residential and non-residential buildings) is and it requires that the information be made public. To that end, the bill suggests a number of circumstances under which the states could inspect a building, including:

(A) preparation, and public disclosure of the label through filing with tax and title records at the time of--

(i) a building audit conducted with support from Federal or State funds;

(ii) a building energy-efficiency retrofit conducted in response to such an audit;

(iii) a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity;

(iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8);

(v) a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or

(vi) a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing; or

(B) other appropriate means.

Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that's saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home iif you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person getting a utility bill.

And what will the penalties be for non-compliance? Well, you'll have to go read Jimmie's column to find out. Needless to say, there are always penalties for not complying with the government's rules. Always.

Michelle Malkin predicts the retrofit police. http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/08...trofit-police/

Jolie Rouge · 07-09-2009, 05:07 PM

The farce of cap-and-tax revealed[i]
By Michelle Malkin • July 9, 2009 10:27 AM
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/09...-tax-revealed/

From Sen. James Inhofe:

http://michellemalkin.cachefly.net/m...9/07/chart.jpg

What does it mean? The truth about the cap-and-trade farce revealed:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...0-3399477b1393

Quote:

During a hearing today in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, EPA Administrator Jackson confirmed an EPA analysis showing that unilateral U.S. action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would have no effect on climate. Moreover, when presented with an EPA chart depicting that outcome, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said he disagreed with EPA’s analysis.

“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” Administrator Jackson said.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) presented the chart to both Jackson and Secretary Chu, which shows that meaningful emissions reductions cannot occur without aggressive action by China, India, and other developing countries. “I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

***

More from The Foundry. http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/08/...2%80%99t-work/

Will Sen. Robert Byrd stand by his opposition to Waxman-Markey — or will he trade his vote for more payoffs? http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-...and-trade-bill

***

More farce revealed at the G8 summit: You go first. No, you… http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,4157661.story

Quote:

Developing nations led by China and India refused Wednesday to back lofty but long-term targets proposed by the Group of 8 industrial nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions, balking at reluctance by leaders of the world’s biggest economies to move more quickly on their own.

Inability to bridge the gap between rising carbon-emitting countries such as China and the longtime polluters within the G-8 underscores the steep challenges involved in attempting to strike a comprehensive bargain to contain global warming.

The impasse comes down to the politically sensitive issue of who goes first.

President Obama and his counterparts in the G-8, who are holding two days of meetings in the central Italian mountain town of L’Aquila, offered broad agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The statement pledged to slash global emissions by 50%, led by reductions of 80% by the G-8 countries.

They also prepared to offer new financial incentives for developing nations to join the effort.

But the G-8 stopped well short of pledging to take aggressive action that could curb emissions more quickly — at the cost of higher energy prices and a feared worsening of the global economy.

Also, this is the fourth time this century a climate change fraud
has been attempted.

Quote:

CO2 has no impact on the earth’s temperature, that is just the big
lie that has been pushed for so long that unfortunately lots of people have come to believe it.

Firstly CO2 is the RESULT of higher temperatures not the cause. The Sunspot Cycle drives variation in climate, see this chart from NASA and see that its about a ten to twelve year cycle. When the earth is warmer more CO2 is released from the oceans. But CO2 does not drive the temperature change, the sun does that. CO2 is a minority gas in the atmosphere that only makes up far less than one percent (.038% to be exact). CO2 is an essential gas which plant life requires in order to grow.

Here is what scientists without economic interest in the global warming fraud have to say about CO2 :

If you take CO2 as a percentage of all the gases in the atmosphere, the oxygen, the nitrogen and argon and so on its .054% [.00054], its an incredibly small portion and then of course you’ve got to take that portion which supposedly humans are adding which is the focus of all the concern and it gets even smaller.

The atmosphere is made up of a multitude of gases, a small percentage of them we call greenhouse gases, and of that very small percentage of greenhouse gases, 95% of it is water vapor, its the most important greenhouse gas.

The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have here, they said, if the CO2 increases in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas then the temperature will go up, but the ice core records shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong.

- Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology University of Winnipeg

[There have been periods] in earth’s history when we had three times as much CO2 as we do today, times when we had ten times as much CO2 as we have today, if CO2 has a large effect in climate then we should see it in the temperature reconstruction.

- Professor Nir Shawiv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem

We can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainty never did in the past.
CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes, its a product of temperature, its following temperature changes.

- Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

None of the major climate changes in the last thousand years can be
explained by CO2.

- Dr. Piers Corbyn, Climate Forecaster, Weather Action

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, by far the most important greenhouse gas.
Humans produce a small fraction in the single digits, percentage wise of the CO2 that is produced in the atmosphere.

- Professor John Christy, Lead Author, IPCC, Department of Atmospheric
Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Anyone that goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming of the 20th century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers.

- Professor Patrick Michaels, Dept of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia

CO2 began to increase exponentially in about 1940, but the temperature actually began to decrease 1940, continued until about 1975.

- Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Director, International Arctic Research
Center

http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...eandice/firean
dice.asp

Jolie Rouge · 07-09-2009, 05:11 PM

Meanwhile, in Uganda, they are blaming the drought on angry gods. The libs are arguing they are partially right.

Quote:

The Karimojong blame the spell of calamities like drought and disease to the “angry gods”. Little do they know that their area is suffering the consequences of a larger problem, climate change.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200907081085.html

Because there were never droughts before the industrial revolution....

Jolie Rouge · 08-04-2009, 07:46 PM

U.S. consumers spared big costs in climate bill
By Timothy Gardner
1 hr 36 mins ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) – A new U.S. government study on Tuesday adds to a growing list of experts concluding that climate legislation moving through Congress would have only a modest impact on consumers, adding a bit more than $100 to household costs in 2020.

Under the climate legislation passed by the House of Representatives in June, electricity, heating oil and other bills for average families will rise $114 in 2020 and $288 in 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration, the country's top energy forecaster.

The bill requires energy companies to help consumers lower costs during the early years of the program which would "mute the impact of higher energy prices for households until at least 2025," said Kay Smith, an EIA economist.

Regulating greenhouse gases with a market mechanism, such as the cap and trade program outlined in the bill, is one of President Barack Obama's top goals.

Democratic leaders hope the bill, which would place a cost on polluting greenhouse gases in the United States like carbon dioxide for the first time, will come to a vote by the full Senate in October. That would come before a U.N. meeting in Copenhagen in December in which nearly 200 countries hope to form a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

The EIA estimate was in line with earlier projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which said average families would pay about $175 extra annually by 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency, which said families would pay at most an extra $1 per day.

Republican opponents of the bill have calculated household costs would rise $3,100 or more annually on higher prices for energy and other goods. The Chamber of Commerce estimated in April that a cap and trade system would cost households about $1,400 a year by 2020.

MINIMIZING WINDFALL PROFITS

A big part of keeping costs down involves the use of offsets, which would allow polluters like power plants to invest in projects -- like burning gases given off from rotting farm animal waste -- when they determine it's too expensive to cut their own pollution.

The CBO said in a report on Tuesday that offsets could cut the costs of the climate bill passed by the House by 70 percent from 2012 to 2050, though questions linger about whether some of offsets, particularly ones revolving around forestry, actually cut all of the emissions they claim.

At a hearing on Capitol Hill, the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, concluded that "consumers will bear most of the costs of a cap and trade system" as companies pass along their increased energy costs.

The GAO added, however, "These costs could be largely offset depending on how revenues are used."

Under the bill, many of the permits to pollute would be given away at first to local power companies, which would then be required to help lower consumer costs through investments in conservation and by lowering energy bills.

The finance committee is examining whether pollution permits required under the climate change bill should be sold or given away initially and whether some consumers, especially the poor, should be given rebates or new tax breaks.

"We want to make sure we minimize the chance of windfall profits" to companies, Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said. Baucus acknowledged the difficulty writing a bill that achieves Democrats' environmental goals while still having enough votes to pass the Senate.

Fellow Democrat Blanche Lincoln drove that point home during the hearing, calling the House-passed bill "deeply flawed" and one that would hurt rural areas like her home state of Arkansas, which rely more heavily on petroleum fuels to drive long distances and grow crops.

But Senator John Kerry, a leading proponent of cap and trade legislation, accused some companies of engaging in "bogus arguments" that inflate the potential costs to consumers. He warned that if Congress fails to pass a climate bill, the Environmental Protection Agency likely would step in with carbon regulations that would be more onerous on companies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090804/...9uc3VtZXJzcw--

Quote:

A new U.S. government study on Tuesday adds to a growing list of experts concluding that climate legislation moving through Congress would have only a modest impact on consumers...

As opposed to prior studies which stated there wouldbe NO impact onconsumers ...

Jolie Rouge · 09-17-2009, 12:31 AM

Revealed: Cap-and trade will cost American families $2k each per year
Sister Toldjah on September 16, 2009
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...each-per-year/

More great news from the administration that has promised us HopenChange: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09...y5314040.shtml

Quote:

AP)The Obama administration has privately concluded that a cap and trade law would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion a year, the equivalent of hiking personal income taxes by about 15 percent.

A previously unreleased analysis prepared by the U.S. Department of Treasury says the total in new taxes would be between $100 billion to $200 billion a year. At the upper end of the administration’s estimate, the cost per American household would be an extra $1,761 a year.

A second memorandum, which was prepared for Obama’s transition team after the November election, says this about climate change policies: “Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation.”

The documents (PDF) were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute and released on Tuesday.

These disclosures will probably not aid the political prospects of the Democrats’ cap and trade bill. The House of Representatives approved it by a remarkably narrow margin in June — the bill would have failed if only six House members had switched their votes to “no” — and it faces significant opposition in the Senate.

Republicans estimate it would actually be closer to over $3k a year per family. http://republicanleader.house.gov/Ne...umentID=117509 And don’t forget that in addition to raising the taxes of the American people, this bill would be a surefire job-killer as well, as Sarah Palin pointed out here. http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/20...cap-and-trade/

Once again, as with ObamaCare, the Senate may very well be the last line of defense between the American people and higher taxes that the Obama admin wants to use to pay for its agenda. Write your Senator today – no matter whether they are Democrat or Republican – to make sure your voice is heard on the issue of cap and tax, er, trade.

Jolie Rouge · 09-29-2009, 02:11 PM

Senate climate bill tougher than House version
H. Josef Hebert And Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writer
54 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Draft Senate climate change legislation would require a 20 percent cut in greenhouse gases by 2020, far deeper than the reductions mandated in the House version.

The draft obtained by The Associated Press remains subject to change. But the overall carbon reduction requirements are expected to stand. The Democratic bill is to be released Wednesday by the Senate Environmental Committee with a vote by the panel likely in late October.

The draft includes an economy-wide cap and trade system that would require power plants, industrial facilities and refineries to cut carbon dioxide releases. But it does not lay out how emission allowances would be distributed, leaving that for later. The bill is viewed widely as an early focus of Senate negotiations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/...e_climate_bill