By Susan Kraemer •
September 10, 2009
The Waxman-Markey Climate Bill uses Cap and Trade to get our current 6 billion tons of CO2 a year down to just over 5 billion tons a year by 2020 (20% by 2020) and continuing down further by 2050.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the auction proceeds of the current Cap and Trade bill would increase Federal revenues by about $846 billion by 2019.
That would more than fund the $821 billion in renewable energy spending that it will take (per the CBO) to reduce the national carbon footprint by almost a billion tons a year on deadline, and would leave $25 billion in the bank for additional renewable energy projects.
This revenue would fund programs that reduce carbon emissions and that cut the cost to individuals and businesses. Some examples over the jump:
By Joe Walsh •
September 2, 2009
Suddenly, “green business” is a little low on green and high on business. Companies that were built to take on Big Oil are now sharpening their elbows in the lobbying fight to make sure that the bottom line does not fall victim to grid enhancements that are built out by someone else.
By Joanna Schroeder •
August 10, 2009
Despite government rebates for hybrids offered to consumers in U.S. and Canada, the programs are failing to produce environmental benefits, yet the programs continue to cost consumers. This according to a new study, “Green Drivers or Free Riders? An Analysis of Tax Rebates for Hybrid Vehicles,” from the University of British Columbia (UBC).
The study finds that
hybrid sales have not replaced gas guzzling SUVS, but rather have replaced small, relatively fuel-efficient, conventional cars. Too bad considering SUVS, trucks and vans produce substantially greater carbon emissions.
I’m well aware that poring over the details of cap and trade can be a little boring. But thanks to the folks at Auto-Tune the News, all that has changed.
Much has been said in opposition to the cap and trade climate legislation that is currently on the Senate’s plate. Opponents have argued repeatedly that the legislation will do nothing but increase the cost of energy, which will force companies send jobs over seas, where labor is cheaper, in order to keep up with production demands. Senator Kit Bond (R-Missouri) even went as far as to call the Waxman-Markey Bill “a pig in a poke.”
While I know the details of climate policy can be a little dry at times, I didn’t know it was quite this sleep-inducing.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu visits Jon Stewart at the daily show, and much to the host’s surprise (and unlike other members of the cabinet who’ve visited the show), Chu is alive.
We already know that Fox News’ telepundit Bill O’Reilly believes anthropogenic global warming is real and shouldn’t be ignored. Now we know he’s not a huge fan of a cap-and-trade policy because it would fatten the wallets of Goldman Sachs and Al Gore.
Just when you thought no more ink could be spilled about the merits or political viability of a carbon tax versus a cap and trade, it has.
A few weeks ago Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) called for a new energy solution. A solution that came in the form of 100 new nuclear power plants. That vision has not left the republicans’ eyes. And on Tuesday, Senator Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) added his two cents.
By Fred Etcheverry •
June 30, 2009
It’s no surprise that the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufactures oppose the American Clean Air and Security Act, but so does Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. Dow Chemical and Ford Motors support it.
