Rep. Doyle Says Climate Plan Will Subsidize Polluters For ‘Ten To Fifteen Years’
Rep. Doyle Says Climate Plan Will Subsidize Polluters For ‘Ten To Fifteen Years’
According to Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), corporations would be subsidized for most of their global warming pollution for more than ten years, under terms being negotiated for the climate and energy bill being drafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. If this is true, the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act would violate a pledge by President Obama to fund tax cuts for working families through carbon market revenues and would generate massive windfall profits for polluters. Doyle said most of the pollution permits created for a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gases would be given away:
While the exact numbers were still in flux, Doyle said, “The majority of the permits will be allocated (given away) at first.”
Asked what percentage would be sold to utilities, manufacturers and other firms, Doyle responded, “Not a big number initially…in the first 10 to 15 years.”
The Center for American Progress “supports auctioning 100 percent of the greenhouse gas emission permits from day one under a cap-and-trade program” and using the auction revenues to assist workers and industries to make the transition to a low-carbon economy:
This would include supporting new investments in green technology and energy efficiency; sheltering American households from any economic dislocations due to shifting energy prices; alleviating higher costs for energy-intensive industries; adapting to some of the effects of global warming that we are already experiencing globally; and creating good, “green jobs” and more vibrant, healthier communities in this process. A 100 percent auction will ensure that large polluters, and not the hardworking Americans least able to foot the bill, are financing the investments necessary to carry out these vital public projects.
Of course, without any climate policy, the public is subsidizing all the costs of global warming pollution, as the threat of catastrophic climate change grows without bound. So even a cap-and-trade system that pays hundreds of billions of dollars of public money to corporate polluters to get them to clean up their act is better than the alternative. As President Obama explained to business leaders in March, he is flexible on his campaign pledge for full auction of pollution permits:
Now, the experience of a cap-and-trade system thus far is that if you’re giving away carbon permits for free, then basically you’re not really pricing the thing and it doesn’t work, or people can game the system in so many ways that it’s not creating the incentive structures that we’re looking for. The flip side is, you’re right, if it’s so onerous that people can’t meet it, then it defeats the purpose — and politically we can’t get it done anyway.
7 Responses to “Rep. Doyle Says Climate Plan Will Subsidize Polluters For ‘Ten To Fifteen Years’”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
I hope you leftist loons and Obamanoids are ready to pay California size electric bills, because that’s exactly what we are all going to get if Obama’s Cap and Trade bill goes thru.
May 7th, 2009 at 12:26 pmCalifornia electric bills are actually below the national average.
Sorry, try again.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:26 pmThis is kicking the can down the road to the next generation, where the cost will be even greater. You have to start somewhere and even using the GOP’s bad math, the cost is worth the effort. The use of the GOP Scary Math to frighten legislator’s who should know better is an abomination. If you give away the Cap / Trade permits, that is 10-20 more years for the oil industry to do nothing more than pump / buy oil. Only when there is an incentive to change (and a lower profit is an incentive) will any of these polluting industries spend money.
Giving these permits away for free is like doing nothing and Congress should be embarrassed by their weak-knee performance. They may be financed by big money donors, but they retain their office by we little voters…and we are watching very closely.
May 7th, 2009 at 2:40 pmRobrob is thinking about the rates California paid under Enron. How did _that_ work out for you, fool?
May 8th, 2009 at 8:18 pmBig government is cruel, because it does not really care about the environment but uses the issue to further its power. The more restrictive the government is, the more polluted the environment becomes. All one needs to do is look around the world or in pro big government cities in order to see this.
If you truly want to have a clean environment, you must reduce the role of government, government restrictions, increase personal freedom, economic property, and property rights. People want to live in a clean environment; it is big government that does not care.
May 11th, 2009 at 9:03 amBig Government is cruel because it promotes the fallacy of Global warming, which preys on the fears of others, spreads misery, creates poverty, and ensures that we are all dependent on the rich and powerful.
It promotes the fallacy of global warming, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary; trillions of years of history that show continues abrupt climate changes, and the reality of having to extinguish the sun in order to actually eliminate it.
May 11th, 2009 at 10:52 amtk, you heretic! How dare you suggest that the earth is “trillions” of years old?! You know from the Bible that God created it some 5-6 thousand years ago!
PS – The “science” you’re looking at doesn’t really say “trillions”, does it?
May 11th, 2009 at 12:43 pm