FiredUp Refuted By Obama, Hansen, And Common Sense

.Sean, a D.C. Transplant incapable of writing an original thought or even bothering to read what he copy and pastes, is desperately trying to win points with the Carnahan family with daily smear jobs against Missouri Republicans.  You can waste time trying to talk sense into the boy, but he's made it clear his job is propaganda, not thinking.

The Waxman Markey cap and trade bill coming up is Exhibit A.  Cap and trade by definition is intended to raise energy prices so consumers use less energy.  It's the whole purpose of the system.  The government imposes fees for the emission of GHG's, which companies then pass on to the consumer either through higher energy prices, or through the retrofitting of plants with new technologies.  The pain of paying higher energy then convinces people to use less, leading to less greenhouse gas emissions.  Dont believe me?  Ask Barack Obama what his cap and trade is supposed to do.

The point of cap and trade is to raise gas, coal, and natural gas energy prices high enough to make you stop using them. 

.Sean may or may not know this - he keeps pretending that cap and trade costs only what the CBO memo says.  He ignores the fact that if Waxman-Markey only costs $175/year per family, then it's failed and is simply a $600 billion tax that enriches folks like Al Gore (he has a bumper sticker that says Global Warming Profit(sic)).  If Waxman-Markey doesn't reduce emissions, it's a scam.  If it doesn't hurt consumers, it's useless. That's what Obama said in the video.  But wait there's more.  Left-wing NASA "scientist" James Hansen, last seen being arrested in West Virginia protesting a coal company (why does the government still pay him?), attacks Waxman-Markey as worse than doing nothing.  Hansen says its a money making scheme designed to make Wall Street rich without actually solving the problem.

So let's recap.  Democrats are once again pushing a bill with huge changes to our national economy through the Congress with little debate, no time to read it, over the objections of Republicans, and all for our own good.  They claim it's an important tool to fight global warming, but it won't cost much.  The truth is it will cost a lot, and does nothing to address global warming.  When looked at closely, it's yet another political payoff to rich Democrats, taking money from citizens and using it to feed every larger federal bureaucracies.  They even brag it's a net revenue producer for the government.  Who is that revenue produced from?  Us.  So Washington takes money from us and because they run it through Enron clones, they can call it permit auctions rather than direct taxes.

And FiredUp, well-known in Missouri as the online megaphone of the Carnahan family, attacks Missouri politicians for daring to stand up to a bill that enriches those who have a vested interest in wind farms.

"Even if wind is slightly higher in 2008 than its competitors, you look at the price over time. It's a flat price over 20 years, compared to a combined-cycle or a coal unit that's going to have increased costs. Even if you sprinkle in a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, it all of a sudden looks very, very good"

Can you guess who gave us that quote?  Hint:  It was a Carnahan.

Comments

[Clark]

Um, replace "raise energy prices" with "carbon emission prices" and then you would be correct. Of course, if you make that correction, your point vanishes.

[Jim Durbin]

Clark,

Energy prices are carbon emission prices, especially for any state in between Colorado and West Virginia. The two are currently linked, and while I hope as much as the next guy we create a clean renewable energy source, it isn't happening yet.

Which links energy prices and carbon emission prices for the near future.

We have to stop using coal, oil, and natural gas to meet these targets. The only way to do so currently is to use less energy. Less energy means less jobs, less money, less taxes, less food, less of everything.

If this is what we need to save the planet, why then are we forced to lie about the cost? If cap and trade costs next to nothing, it's useless except as a giant tax. If it is substantial, why can't the people pushing it admit this and let the chips fall where they may.

That would mean the point stays.

How about - we invest a lot of time and money into clean energy, but not cripple the economic engine that provides the money to do so?

I'll make you a deal. You cut the Department of Education, and we'll shift that money into energy research.