Hi,
A couple of folks contacted me about this subject and I figured it would be easier to just post my research report. I am working with a senate candidate and I have basically edited what I sent to him. At the end of my report is the resource material and links.
I will apologize in advance for the length because i have included my personal bias based on some of my life experiences. At the same time this TOTAL SHAM needs to be exposed for what it truly is and we cannot allow any form of this legislation to pass.
regards,
5412
CAP AND TRADE RESEARCH REPORT byDennis Miller
I suggest you set aside some time to read this, it is heavy and long.. I want to pass along some personal experiences, observations, and data that all relate to the Cap and Trade bill that passed the house. They will tie together and give you somewhat of an idea of where I personally am coming from. I will follow that with either an article, or what would be my position paper, designed to educate the public and gather support for my position. So here goes....
My first experience with the environmental movement began in the early 1970's. One of my first accounts in the training business was Public Service of Indiana. They were a electric utility, covered most of rural Indiana, and not Indianapolis. They had about 7 coal fired generating stations, offices and equipment scattered appropriately throughout the state. They were truly real midwestern, home town, good folk. If there was an event like a tornado in Indiana or adjoining states they all pitched in and got things up and running, there was a real sense of community throughout the company and they were well respected. At one time I believe they were ranked in the top five of electric utilities in the country.
As Indiana began to grow, even though they are sitting on tons and tons of coal reserves, they wanted to be environmentally responsible and decided to make their next power plant a nuclear facility. Now the way their rates were based was on capital investment, the regulatory agencies gave them a certain acceptable return on investment. They could not however include investment in new power plants until they were up and running and producing electricity. After all the announcement, fan fare, funding raised through bonds etc. they broke ground. Then they got blindsided. Some anti-nuclear group headed by a lawyer named Cherry (to use their term) came down from Chicago and was paid the exorbitant sum of $100,000 to do everything he could to prevent the plant from being built. The Indiana folks were no match for Mr. Cherry, legal delays, briefs, hearings, all dragged on for a year and a half or so.....in the meantime the company was building up hundreds of millions in debt and almost went bankrupt. Finally, the company decided to have a meeting with all the "do-gooders" and their representatives involved. The meeting was set up and they were asked to submit their list of concerns to the company so they could be addressed.
The utility took that list and had engineers, scientists, environmentalists, answer each and every one of them showing how they were under control and would not be a problem. From an engineering perspective, they slam dunked the foes. Then after addressing each and every concern, they said, "Now that we have shown you how we are going to do this, and your concerns are addressed and will not be a problem, will you support us?" The room got very, very quiet. They were then told NO. Basically they had two concerns. One, to support them would be to admit they were wrong and they would lose face.....and second this is how they made their living. If the supported the project they would be out of a job. (Same thing happened when Obama got elected, they asked Jesse Jackson if now the black movement was on par. He realized quickly he could not say yes or he would be out of a job... Saying things were good would be bad for his business.)
Eventually, on the verge of bankruptcy, the company decided to make their Marble Hill generating plan coal fired. My lesson was that the foes and so called do-gooders do not want to be bothered with the facts, they just get frustrated. No matter how hard you try, their emotional arguments will be all they want to hear....plus many of their motives are very suspect.
NO MATTER WHAT WAS SAID THE POLITICIANS WERE GOING TO PAY HOMAGE TO THEIR CAMPAIGN DONORS REGARDLESS OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. They ignored the facts presented to them.
Fast forward now to the late 1980's. My oldest son gets appointed to the naval academy by Sam Nunn....wish we had more like him in congress today. Well my son proceeds to graduate second in his class, then go on to MIT and get a masters degree in nuclear engineering with straight "A"s....something which had not ever been done before. He eventually became an officer on a nuclear submarine. I asked him many times about nuclear power and basically he said, "Dad my bunk is right next to the generator, and I have no fear whatsoever." Well 20 years later he is still just fine, doesn't glow in the dark or anything.......and just how many aircraft carriers and submarines have been built with nuclear technology and run for 20+ years without refueling....
I have one more item to add, then want to tie some stuff together.
One of the subjects I researched, wrote about, and taught for many years was problem solving. One of the key ingredients in a problem solving exercise is a test you apply to possible solutions
....."Look for the effects of your decisions, sometimes your solutions can cause a bigger problem." Unfortunately politicians never seem to apply that theory.
For example, in 1963, Lyndon Johnson decided his legacy was "The Great Society". Now one problem was that there were some unfortunate young mothers who were unwed and trying to raise a child well below the poverty line. Well Lyndon decides to use our tax dollars to fund a problem for ADC, aid to dependent children. Sounds like a great idea. I saw a black woman on TV about five years ago saying that single law did more to destroy the black family than anything the government has ever done. Now the black male who fathers a child takes no responsibility whatsoever....she was adamant in the fact it destroyed the black family unit. I go one step further, we have now incentivized out of wedlock birth which has resulted in generation upon generation of families living off the government. Seems Mr. Johnson has created a much bigger problem for our society today. Don't believe me? A few years back I think New Jersey and Wisconsin decided to pass a law that said after your third child they would not increase payments even if you had more children. All the ACLU folks screamed and raised hell but the out of wedlock birth rate plummeted over the next few years.
Now lets take a minute (this is from memory) and look at how the so called Cap & Trade bill got put together that passed the house. Al Gore, not a scientist, testified before congress as to the horrors of global warming. Now the fact he owns a company who is going to handle all the receipt and distribution of funds and is rumored to become the first billionaire if the law passes could not have affected his judgment a bit. Several scientific types who are proponents of global warming also testified. It was interesting but there are now supposed to be some 30,000 (?) or was it 60,000 (?) scientists who have signed a petition that basically says global warming is a hoax, a false premise if you will. I guess some of those were going to testify but then Pelosi cancelled them out so none who had different viewpoints about the MAJOR PREMISE were even allowed to testify.
Now Jeffrey Immelt (who I have met twice. I personally dislike the man and have twittered Jack Welsh that it took Immelt five years to destroy what it took Jack 20 years to build) comes on and also testifies from what I have been told. Make no mistake GE stands to make many billions with their wind turbines and their cap and trade advantages, plus GE capital will handle the money from what I have been told...trillions.
The fundamental premise of cap and trade is to reduce carbon emissions. They are a result of burning fossil fuels. Here is what one of the articles said about CO2:
What Is the Problem with Carbon Dioxide (CO2)?
Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, is not directly harmful to human health, and is not projected to become so--even without legislative or regulatory action. CO2 is fundamental to all known forms of life. Indeed, studies show that increased CO2 levels are beneficial for crop production.
Nevertheless, driven by concern that increasing levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) will lead to a warmer world and cause environmental damage, there have been calls to significantly restrict emissions of all greenhouse gasses, but especially CO2. Among the proposals to reduce CO2 levels are carbon taxes and cap and trade.
Now in several of the articles they go on to say that in the next 85 years that the climate change as a result of the bill will be less than .02 of a degree in temperature. There are also other articles and testimony that shows in europe the opposite has happened, more emissions are being produced.
So the president said he wanted to basically establish emission standards and companies would have to pay a fee based on every ton of CO2 they produced. Largest hit would be the utilities. Sothere is a target set up for each company for emissions. If you produce more you have to buy credits from the government.....if effect permission slips to produce about the target level. Now each year of course the targets move to even more stringent goals. On the other hand, should you exceed your targets you get paid from the government....in theory. Of course Al Gore will handle the paperwork and GE Capital will handle the money, but no conflict of interest at all.
Now comes the dirty little politics which always seem to come into play.
The amount of money this will cost the consumer is gigantic, into the trillions of dollars. Two issues here. First of all the president suggested a 100% auction of emission allowances forcing companies to bid on the right to emit. Now Washington gets hit with 4200 lobbyists (this is all in the research papers) and now 85% of the allowances for the next 10-20 years will be free.....meaning the government will still be paying out....and to companies around the world not just the US several trillion dollars with only 15% of the original revenue coming in.
Editor note: Since I wrote this report a government document was produced under the fairness doctrine which clearly pointed out the true cost of cap and trade and those who favor the bill are knowingly lying to the public in order to get the bill passed.
Now the government does insist this is not a tax. From the consumer perspective that is true, we will not have to fill out a cap and trade tax form and send it in to the government. At the same time it is the cruelest tax of all because the costs will have to be borne by the consumer. Here are just a few bullet points:
The Brookings InstitutionThe Brookings analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill finds loss in personal consumption of $1-2 trillion in present value. The more stringent carbon targets in subsequent years produce even higher costs. Brookings projects that an additional 8 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions increases costs 45 percent. GDP in the United States would be lower by 2.5 percent in 2050, and unemployment would be 0.5 percent higher (1.7 million fewer jobs]) in the first decade below the baseline or without cap and trade. The total allowance revenue (tax revenue) generated by 2050 would be $9 trillion.
The National Black Chamber of CommerceThe National Black Chamber of Commerce found the following adverse effects from Waxman-Markey: In 2015, GDP would be 1 percent ($170 billon) below the "no cap-and-trade bill" baseline. In 2030, GDP will be 1.3 percent ($350 billon) below the baseline, and by 2050 the study projects a reduction in GDP of 1.5 percent ($730 billion). The study also projects higher unemployment of 2.3-2.7 million jobs in each year of the policy through 2030--after accounting for "green job" creation.
The Heritage FoundationThe Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis found that, for the average year over the 2012-2035 timeline, job loss will be 1.1 million greater than the baseline assumptions. By 2035, there is a projected 2.5 million fewer jobs than without a cap-and-trade bill. The average GDP lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. From 2012 to 2035, the accumulated GDP lost is $9.4 trillion (in 2009 dollars). The average of the climate tax revenue--what the government gets to spend or give away--is $236 billion from 2012 through 2035 and adds up to $5.7 trillion in tax collections.
OR IF YOU WANT BULLET POINTS:
Implementing the Waxman-Markey legislation will be very costly, even given the rather optimistic assumptions about how effective it will be in reducing CO2 emissions and how accommodating the economy will be to the added energy costs. The Heritage Foundation's dynamic analysis of these economic costs are summarized as follows (adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars):
• Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
• Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
• Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
• The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
• A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
• Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.
This is me speaking now. My wife owns part interest in a family farm in southern Illinois. It has been in the family for over 100 years. She gets a small oil royalty (starting at .0000%) and the small rural company who handles the lease sent out a letter saying that if Cap and Trade passes they will be forced to go out of business. One thing not mentioned is that even more of our domestic production will be shut down and we will be paying even more to foreigners who seem hell-bent in taking our dollars and funding our enemies.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME IS NOT ONLY WHAT IS IN THE BILL BUT WHAT IS NOT IN THE BILL.
Basically the theory is to put huge costs on consumption of fossil fuels which will dramatically effect each and every Americans standard of living. This is from the article, "Where is Nuclear Energy in the Markey-Waxman Bill?"
While the bureaucratic-laden approach offered by the legislation is extremely problematic, the fact that it has virtually no mention of nuclear power calls the entire green initiative into question. If reducing carbon dioxide and other emissions, creating jobs, and promoting domestic energy sources were truly the objective, then nuclear energy should be central to the legislation.
Nuclear power already provides the United States with 20 percent of its electricity and 73 percent of its CO2-free electricity. When it comes to affordable near-term reduction of CO2 and other atmospheric emissions, the importance of nuclear power cannot be overstated.
NOW IF YOU WANT SOMETHING TO STAND FOR HERE IS A GOOD PLACE TO START:
What the American Clean Energy and Security Act Should Say About Nuclear PowerThe Markey-Waxman bill focuses too much on the process of energy production rather than on the product itself. For example, it creates so-called renewable energy standards that mandate only certain types of energy production, such as wind and solar.[4] This approach artificially eliminates energy sources--including those that have not even been invented yet--that could help achieve Congress's goals. The Markey-Waxman legislation should include the following reforms for nuclear power:
• Reform the Arduous Permitting Process for New Nuclear Power Plants. Congress should institute a fast-track program for granting construction/operation permits for certain new plants. To qualify, a new plant would have to have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-certified design, be located on a site that already has a plant, and be operated by an experienced nuclear operator.[5]
• Modernize Nuclear Waste Management. Congress should authorize nuclear waste producers to finance and manage their own spent nuclear fuel however they see fit so long as public health and safety is protected. This must include repealing the fee paid to the federal government for waste disposition activities. Fees already paid to the federal government should either go toward financing geologic storage or be returned to the ratepayers.
Putting waste-disposition responsibility into the hands of waste producers would create a market for fuel management services and allow nuclear power operators to fold the actual costs of nuclear energy into what they charge for electricity. This would allow the most cost-effective and efficient methods of waste management to emerge and encourage entrepreneurs to develop innovative waste management technologies.
• Support the NRC's Authority to Determine the Safety of Yucca Mountain. The NRC should be allowed to review the Department of Energy's permit application for the Yucca Mountain repository and determine if it can be constructed and operated safely. If it is deemed safe, Congress should allow the nuclear power industry to negotiate the eventual opening of the repository with the people of Nevada.
• Implement Programmatic Changes at the Department of Energy (DOE). A number of programmatic changes at DOE could help save the taxpayer money, bring promising technologies into the marketplace more quickly, and help to ensure an innovative and competitive nuclear industry. Nuclear Power 2010 began in 2002 as a public/private partnership to develop a roadmap to bring an advanced light-water reactor on line by 2010. Permit applications to construct some 30 new reactors have been submitted in recent years, with construction scheduled to begin in the next few years. This demonstrates that the program is close to meeting its primary objectives and is ready to be wound down in the next two years.[6]
Now this is me again. Basically the government is going to put in terrible standards in order to drive up energy costs to the point that it becomes rationed. We the people will be beaten into submission, changing our life styles etc. in the hopes that solar or wind (both GE specialties) can miraculously take up the slack. In the meantime, like so many things Obama is doing he is driving jobs offshore, making our country less competitive and his favorite, gathering more power in government and redistributing the wealth.
I would like to suggest the analogy is a sky diver jumping out of an airplane hoping that somehow, someway a parachute can be invented enroute. To me the biggest crime is this also does not promote domestic drilling and production. How about more oil refineries. If CA would allow offshore drilling the bidding rights to drill would solve their current budget crisis and the royalties would be gigantic for years to come. We have CAFÉ standards and the US has actually reduced CO2 emmissions over the last several years. Instead we are going to destroy the coal industry, the oil industry, send jobs offshore (the job loss number in the bullet points is a net number - meaning they took lost jobs and added back new jobs supposedly created), draw some $6.5 trillion out of the economy and increase our dependency on foreign oil even more. Once again the environmentalists are not rational, Katrina beat the hell out of New Orleans but nary a drop was spilled in the gulf. Our technology today, like nuclear, is very, very safe.
For what it is worth, Congressman Pitts (R-PA) introduced a bill on July 31st called the Streamline America's Future Energy Nuclear Act, which would probably do more than any cap and trade to reduce emissions. One small tidbit. Our last nuclear facility was built in 1973. 44 nuclear plants are under construction in other countries with France now generating 80% of their electricity from nuclear. More on that in a second.
And finally, in the research articles listed below is another article about Europe and Cap and Trade. It is the testimory before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 10,2009. It ain't pretty. Seems the house ignored that also.
My conclusion is this. Why is it this administration with both health care and cap and trade are hell bent on copying a european clusterf*** that has been proven not to work? It is just another big socialist, big government fraud which does nothing but hurt the people. At the same time they totally ignore things like 80% of France's electrical power is generated in nuclear facilities. They copy the bad and not the good. Go back to the premise,
look for the effects of your decisions, sometimes your solutions can cause a bigger problem. In effect, the bill will not solve the problem of global warming even if it is not a hoax; but it will cause Americans some economic problems, hardships and problems beyond our imagination. Sometimes I wonder if the president is not out to destroy this country....and I am not alone in that thinking either.
list of reference articles etc:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/CDA_09-041.pdf http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm_2528.pdf http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm_2476.pdf http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst062309a.cfm?renderforprint=1 http://author.heritage.org/Press/ALAChart/images/048/ALC_048_3col_c.pdf (GREAT CHART)
http://www.heritage.org/Press/ALAChart/images/047/ALC_047_2col_c.pdf (mind blowing chart)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm_2580.pdf (Good, simple definition of what the concept is behind the bill)
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst071009a.cfm?renderforprint=1 http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/tst050709b.cfm?renderforprint=1 http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm_1898.pdf http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm_2386.pdf GOOD ARTICLE ABOUT NUCLEAR ENERGY IN CAP AND TRADE BILL...
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm_2571.pdf 
