March 4, 2024

Calling My Congressman

United States Capitol Header

Today was the deadline that the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, set for having a vote on the climate change legislation, better known as “Cap and Trade.”

This is a really big deal.  It represents one of the biggest tax increases in this country’s history.

How it Works

From what I’ve read, my understanding is that the government would outlaw carbon emissions, but turn around and sell carbon credits.  Over time the amount of credits that would be available would shrink, and the price of them would go up.

Since all utilities have some degree of carbon emissions, the result of the purchasing of the “right to emit carbon” would be that your utility bill would increase.

The idea is to stimulate companies into finding “greener” ways of producing energy and the like.  The problem is that, so far, we haven’t really found one.  Perhaps there’s one or more to be found—obviously, we have nuclear power, but the government has regulated that such that it’s difficult to get permits, and from the time someone says “ok” until the plant comes online is significant.

So, if things stayed the same, or had only minor moves toward greenness, as the plan ratchets up the price of the credits, American families and business suffer.

Why it is Taxation

It’s just another means for the government to take the people’s and businesses money, which would cost jobs, which would add to the burden on the government, which would increase taxes, etc.

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result. [The Cap and Tax Fiction (WSJ)]

And it’s removal of freedom, because the government is telling business how to operate, what they can produce, etc.

And the more people are becoming man made climate change skeptics

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. — 13 times the number who authored the U.N.’s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)  [The Climate Change Climate Change (WSJ)]

I’ve always been a skeptic of man-made global warming, and I’ve believed it was government’s way of gaining more and more control.  And the speed of which the Congress and President are trying to push this legislation through should concern every citizen in the U.S.

I mean, if we even have to ask the question “Will Congress Read Bills Before Voting?” we should know that something’s wrong.  How can our representatives represent us without even reading what they’re voting on?

(Visited 19 times, 1 visits today)

3 thoughts on “Calling My Congressman

  1. I called and told my rep to support it.

    “And it’s removal of freedom, because the government is telling business how to operate, what they can produce, etc.”

    So does this mean that companies should be able to discard toxic waste, mercury, and other pollutants because it’s their right? Come on!! The government has to limit what companies do because they would not police themselves and do what’s best for the envorinment if they weren’t forced to do so. Look at the case that created the movie, Erin Brocovich. That company poisoned an entire town, causing many cases of cancer. Your argument seems to imply that they have a right and freedom to pollute, and everyone else can fend for themselves. ridiculous.
    .-= Musicguy´s last blog ..Happy Darwin Day! =-.

    1. @Musicguy: Of course there is a huge difference between outlawing poison or regulating dumping of those kind of chemicals and regulating carbon dioxide emissions which more scientists (every day) are coming to say is based on faulty science.

      There’s no reason for this bill, it’s a power grab by the government. It will cripple our economy, destroy jobs, etc. all in the name of helping the environment– but it won’t even accomplish this because we can’t even prove that CO2 is a pollutant in the first place. Just look at Australia, Britian and Japan. Once on the forefront of this kind of stuff, they’re trying to get out of it because it’s proving to be useless and killing their economies.

      I mean, talk about a great idea in a recession!

  2. You are right… companies don’t have the right to poison your water supply. But they don’t have that right, right now!

    This bill is going to cause prices to rise. And in case anyone isn’t paying attention, we are in the worst recession since the great depression.

    How many people can afford to spend more for the same level of services or the same amount of goods? And what about the people that cannot afford to spend more?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge