(Page 2 of 2)
One key element conspicuously absent from the bill, however, is a description of how the allowances will be distributed. President Obama has said that he supports a system where 100 percent of the allowances are auctioned off to polluters to ensure that each company pays for all its carbon emissions. But many in Congress and industry are concerned that the cost of these permits could hurt the steel and paper industries, among others, by putting them at a disadvantage compared with countries that don't regulate carbon dioxide emissions. At the MIT forum, Congressman Markey said that to protect these industries, some of the allowances will be given away rather than auctioned off.
Eventually, he said, the goal is to auction off all of the allowances, but achieving this could first require ensuring that China and India are also limiting carbon dioxide emissions. Other participants in the forum emphasized that bringing technologies for reducing emissions to these countries could require research and development to lower the cost of renewable energy and of capturing and storing carbon dioxide.
Cap-and-trade legislation has failed in the past. But this year, the possibility of the EPA regulating carbon emissions could push legislators to pass a bill that would give them more control over how such emissions are regulated, Markey said. In 2007, a Supreme Court decision paved the way for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. "The only way to avoid that is to have Congress act," he said. "Industries across the country will have to gauge how lucky they feel, if they kill the legislation, in terms of how the EPA will treat them."
Economists and utilities say the draft legislation could help avoid costly regulations.
A carbon-emissions limit will raise energy prices unevenly.
Food to Fuel which starves 100 million. Ethanol production that uses an avg 100 gallons of water to make 1 gallon. Biofuel that increases ozone, N2O, and formaldehyde pollution. Green jobs that lose 2.2 regular jobs for every 1 created. Loss of capital efficiency that blows the budget, drives out industry, and destroys our economy. Green energy that is inefficient, inconsistent, and requires massive investment in grid expansion because of distant site location. Policy that pays billions for farmers not to farm, and billions more to put low productivity land into production. Green jobs really mean green for the lawyers, politicians, and insiders. You have been lied to. Will you go down quietly?
This is the kind of attitude that has kept the US from getting anywhere in the first place. So let’s keep loosing life over securing foreign resources because it is too costly to build the infrastructure to expand renewable resources in the US.
I agree that ethanol production from CORN is not the route to go but there are other emerging alternatives out there like fuel from switchgrass and closed loop algae growth. And yes they both pollute just like diesel and petroleum driven automobiles but instead of the $453.3 billion spent on importing foreign oil, it could have stayed in the US http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/annual.html.
I’m not sure how an extra $454 billion will destroy the economy but I’m also not an economist. Maybe you could also reply with a link to the facts that green jobs will lose 2.2 regular jobs for every one created.
The Disaster you're painting a picture of is based on using Biofuels for standalone vehicles, but if you use them for mass transit where the passenger per vehile is considerbaly higher, then there's a reduced risk.
Notice how all these bills from our government lack any specifics on Mass Transit solutions?
Don't worry though. When this planet decides to swat us off it's face like pesky fleas on a dog, all will return to normal and the planet will heal itself.
Pretty quickly I might add.
I do not support Cap and Trade since capping carbon and trading credits does not create anything.
1. Cap and Trade does not create wealth or help the American people in any way. In fact it robs the people of needed funds by increasing the cost of energy at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.
2. Cap and Trade is perceived by the public as just another tax to help create a bigger government or to line the pockets of a few individuals or corporations.
3. Cap and Trade does nothing to create a larger workforce who pay taxes but does the exact opposite by removing needed capital from the private investment sector.
4. Cap and Trade is not a product - you can't eat it, the public can't spend or save it, you can't drive it or plant it in the ground and watch it grow.
In fact, Cap and Trade is exactly the opposite of what we need to be doing. What we need is more renewable energy from a variety of sources to reduce carbon emissions That's my opinion, what is yours?
tomgarven@hotmail.com
Guest (dennisbaker)
China and India participation is moot
the export of alternative energy to these contries is where the big money is.
participation in the cap and trade is not essential, what is essential is the cost of implementation of alternatives must be less than continued fossil fuel dependancy.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
mkogrady
425 Comments
Is there a Bill Number
What is the HR bill number for this, or where is the draft of the legislation stored (ie BillTrack?)
Reply
Kevin Bullis
178 Comments
Re: Is there a Bill Number
I just put in a link above. Click on "A draft" right before the name of the bill.
Reply