"You Are NOT Alone!"
ACTION NEEDED: Cap and Trade to be Voted on in the House On Friday!
Shawn Selby has researched Cap and Trade, which is being voted on in the House this week. It is important that we contact our Representatives, to oppose this destructive legislation. Contact information is included at the end of this report.
Here is Shawn's report:
Cap and Trade Overview
Q- What is "Cap and Trade"?
A- In the simplest terms that I have found, it can be called "pollution credits".
The premise is to reduce the Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in this case, Carbon Dioxide, by setting air quality standards for a certain area, (or nation). The government will give companies who are putting pollutants into the air a certain number of allowances, which is the amount of pollutants the government will allow the facility to emit.
If a facility comes in under the allowed limit using air pollution control systems, they can then sell the remaining leftover allowances to other facilities or organizations on the open market.
This allows facilities that are buying up these "pollution credits" to pollute more, because other facilities are polluting less.
The theory behind this is it is rewarding companies to control the air pollution, and giving the other companies who may not be able to purchase the latest air pollution reduction technologies some time to raise capital to afford it.
The problems it creates is multi-faceted.
When put into effect, while "cleaning up" certain areas, it can allow the areas where the companies who have purchased these credits, to over-pollute THAT particular area, causing extremely unhealthy air to breathe.
It does little for overall pollution problems because the groups that do not pollute, simply sell their credits to the highest bidder. While one firm cuts back on its emissions, the firm buying up the credits simply increases its emissions.
The second problem with it is the overall costs involved in the Cap and Trade market, and there are no rules or limits as to the price paid for these credits.
An example that I found:
Cap and trade is spouted as a way to reduce the Greenhouse gas emissions, (GHG) based on the following:
1) Capping the amount of GHG's a plant can emit (in total tonnes/year), with a declining amount permitted over the following years.
2) Emissions in excess of that permitted amount cost the plant a fee, (example: $10/tonne)
Assume the plant can either pay the fine, or put in pollution control equipment which would remove the GHG's, but at a cost of more than $10/tonne.
The Cap and Trade premise states that another firm, which is below the permitted pollution rate, will offer the excessively polluting plant it's credit, for say $8/tonne. This makes money for the non-polluting company, and saves the polluting company $2/tonne.
So, naturally what happens, the polluting companies are going to try and buy up as many credits as possible, and not really try to reduce pollution, while the non-polluting company is going to sell as many to the highest bidder. This leads to a trader's commodity market, instead of doing what the original plan called for.
Also, ALL nations need to join in with the idea for it to work . China and India will not participate, and they are two of the worst, if not THE worst, countries with carbon emissions.
Problem three is that there is no real scientific evidence supporting this. We breathe out CO2; plants take it in and make oxygen.
Problem four is that the costs involved for the administering and monitoring this global network would be HUGE and, in all likelyhood, unenforceable for all involved.
Take a look at the United Nations for further proof.
Some places to go to tell your Congressman on how you would like them to vote are:
http://thompson.house.gov
http://casey.senate.gov
http://specter.senate.gov/public/
Greg also sent a good e-mail address at:
http://www.opencongress.org
I tried to check many sources to get a good view of the topic, both for and against. I hope this helps.
Shawn Selby
Here is Shawn's report:
Cap and Trade Overview
Q- What is "Cap and Trade"?
A- In the simplest terms that I have found, it can be called "pollution credits".
The premise is to reduce the Greenhouse Gas Emissions, in this case, Carbon Dioxide, by setting air quality standards for a certain area, (or nation). The government will give companies who are putting pollutants into the air a certain number of allowances, which is the amount of pollutants the government will allow the facility to emit.
If a facility comes in under the allowed limit using air pollution control systems, they can then sell the remaining leftover allowances to other facilities or organizations on the open market.
This allows facilities that are buying up these "pollution credits" to pollute more, because other facilities are polluting less.
The theory behind this is it is rewarding companies to control the air pollution, and giving the other companies who may not be able to purchase the latest air pollution reduction technologies some time to raise capital to afford it.
The problems it creates is multi-faceted.
When put into effect, while "cleaning up" certain areas, it can allow the areas where the companies who have purchased these credits, to over-pollute THAT particular area, causing extremely unhealthy air to breathe.
It does little for overall pollution problems because the groups that do not pollute, simply sell their credits to the highest bidder. While one firm cuts back on its emissions, the firm buying up the credits simply increases its emissions.
The second problem with it is the overall costs involved in the Cap and Trade market, and there are no rules or limits as to the price paid for these credits.
An example that I found:
Cap and trade is spouted as a way to reduce the Greenhouse gas emissions, (GHG) based on the following:
1) Capping the amount of GHG's a plant can emit (in total tonnes/year), with a declining amount permitted over the following years.
2) Emissions in excess of that permitted amount cost the plant a fee, (example: $10/tonne)
Assume the plant can either pay the fine, or put in pollution control equipment which would remove the GHG's, but at a cost of more than $10/tonne.
The Cap and Trade premise states that another firm, which is below the permitted pollution rate, will offer the excessively polluting plant it's credit, for say $8/tonne. This makes money for the non-polluting company, and saves the polluting company $2/tonne.
So, naturally what happens, the polluting companies are going to try and buy up as many credits as possible, and not really try to reduce pollution, while the non-polluting company is going to sell as many to the highest bidder. This leads to a trader's commodity market, instead of doing what the original plan called for.
Also, ALL nations need to join in with the idea for it to work . China and India will not participate, and they are two of the worst, if not THE worst, countries with carbon emissions.
Problem three is that there is no real scientific evidence supporting this. We breathe out CO2; plants take it in and make oxygen.
Problem four is that the costs involved for the administering and monitoring this global network would be HUGE and, in all likelyhood, unenforceable for all involved.
Take a look at the United Nations for further proof.
Some places to go to tell your Congressman on how you would like them to vote are:
http://thompson.house.gov
http://casey.senate.gov
http://specter.senate.gov/public/
Greg also sent a good e-mail address at:
http://www.opencongress.org
I tried to check many sources to get a good view of the topic, both for and against. I hope this helps.
Shawn Selby
Views: 15
-
Comment by Christopher Buchignani on June 25, 2009 at 3:00pm
-
Hi all. I just received this email from the Club for Growth and thought everyone here might interested in it. Sorry for my absence from the meetings - I was sick for the previous one and then still had this week's marked on the calendar for today!
Please call your representative today and urge them to vote NO on the Waxman-Markey energy tax bill. You can reach them by dialing the Capitol Hill switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and asking for your representative. If you have time, please consider calling these House members as well (especially if they are in your state). They are Republicans believed to be undecided and facing intense pressure from environmental activists to support the bill.
Top Ten Undecided Republicans:
Vern Buchanan (FL-13): 202-225-5015
Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-05): 202-225-1002
Joseph Cao (LA-02): 202-225-6636
Vern Ehlers (MI-03): 202-225-3831
Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ-11): 202-225-5034
Jim Gerlach (PA-06): 202-225-4315
Tim Johnson (IL-15): 202-225-2371
Mark Kirk (IL-10): 202-225-4835
Chris Smith (NJ-04): 202-225-3765
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01): 202-225-4806
If you'd like to reach out even further, below is a list of Democratic representatives believed to be undecided:
Jason Altmire (D-PA-04)
Bobby Bright (D-AL-02)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD-01)
Walt Minnick (D-ID-01)
Frank Kratovil (D-MD-01)
Chet Edwards (D-TX-17)
Brad Ellsworth (D-IN-08)
John Boccieri (D-OH-16)
Travis Childers (D-MS-01)
Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA-03)
Mark Schauer (D-MI-07)
Gary Peters (D-MI-09)
Larry Kissell (D-NC-08)
Lincoln Davis (D-TN-04)
Chris Carney (D-PA-10)
Steve Driehaus (D-OH-01)
Harry Teague (D-NM-02)
Joe Donnelly (D-IN-02)
Ciro Rodriquez (D-TX-23)
Harry Mitchell (D-AZ-05)
Betsy Markey (D-CO-04)
Alan Grayson (D-FL-08)
-
Comment by Bette B. Jackson on June 26, 2009 at 12:42pm -
Thank you so very much Shawn for this information. It was so thorough and helpful.
Bette B. Jackson
-
Comment by Peter Trippett on June 26, 2009 at 3:02pm
-
Thanks to Chris Buchignani, as well, for the follow up!
Comment
© 2024 Created by Web Master.
Powered by
You need to be a member of The 9-12 Project of Central PA to add comments!
Join The 9-12 Project of Central PA