Climate change bill in trouble

Squabbling Democrats may be unable to come to an agreement on how much they are going to rob from the taxpayers in order to fund a scheme that threatens not only energy production but the economy as well.

The battle is not between those who want to ax cap and trade and those who want to implement it but rather it's more like a fight between the hard left and the extreme left; not good news for those of us who see in this scheme a dim future for the American economy.

Jim Snyder of The Hill has some of the details:

Energy lobbyists count as many as 11 Democrats on the 36-member subcommittee either on the fence or in opposition to the measure. Because Republicans are likely to vote in unanimity or one vote short of it against the measure, most of those wavering Democrats would have to be convinced to support the bill for it to pass.

Three main issues have divided the group: One, how many emissions allowances should industries like electric utilities receive for free, versus how many should be sold at auction? Two, how quickly should polluters be required to reduce their emissions? And three, to what extent should power plants be forced to use renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to produce.

[snip]

Critics say the only immediate consequence would be a sharp increase in energy costs. Utilities now do not have a way to keep the carbon dioxide emitted by coal and natural gas plants from reaching the atmosphere. Although some hold out hope the gas could eventually be siphoned off and stored underground, that technology is still at least a decade away from being economical.

A draft bill released by Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and subcommittee chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) left open the allocation question.

Penalizing energy production will not speed technological change - especially when the penalties will simply be passed on to consumers who will find their utility bills skyrocketing. Spending more on utility bills will mean less disposable income for the consumer, less savings, less investment, - in short, a smaller, stagnating American economy as Obama's "green jobs" pipedream crashes on the shoals of technological reality.

There are going to be some long, cold winters ahead.


Squabbling Democrats may be unable to come to an agreement on how much they are going to rob from the taxpayers in order to fund a scheme that threatens not only energy production but the economy as well.

The battle is not between those who want to ax cap and trade and those who want to implement it but rather it's more like a fight between the hard left and the extreme left; not good news for those of us who see in this scheme a dim future for the American economy.

Jim Snyder of The Hill has some of the details:

Energy lobbyists count as many as 11 Democrats on the 36-member subcommittee either on the fence or in opposition to the measure. Because Republicans are likely to vote in unanimity or one vote short of it against the measure, most of those wavering Democrats would have to be convinced to support the bill for it to pass.

Three main issues have divided the group: One, how many emissions allowances should industries like electric utilities receive for free, versus how many should be sold at auction? Two, how quickly should polluters be required to reduce their emissions? And three, to what extent should power plants be forced to use renewable energy sources like wind and solar power to produce.

[snip]

Critics say the only immediate consequence would be a sharp increase in energy costs. Utilities now do not have a way to keep the carbon dioxide emitted by coal and natural gas plants from reaching the atmosphere. Although some hold out hope the gas could eventually be siphoned off and stored underground, that technology is still at least a decade away from being economical.

A draft bill released by Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and subcommittee chairman Edward Markey (D-Mass.) left open the allocation question.

Penalizing energy production will not speed technological change - especially when the penalties will simply be passed on to consumers who will find their utility bills skyrocketing. Spending more on utility bills will mean less disposable income for the consumer, less savings, less investment, - in short, a smaller, stagnating American economy as Obama's "green jobs" pipedream crashes on the shoals of technological reality.

There are going to be some long, cold winters ahead.