Besides Michael Jackson, there have been other stories that I have found "news worthy". One in particular is the Waxman-Markey bill, or as the right has labeled it, "Cap and Trade" bill and as the left has labeled it, "Clean Energy Bill". Both are correct. It is a cap and trade bill that is enforcing clean energy standards. If you would like to be one step ahead of the majority of the Congressmen who voted on this bill, you can read the entire text, here.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will increase the average American household energy costs by $175. I don't know about you, but adding a $175 bill doesn't 'stimulate' my household's economy! But if it is to save the earth, I guess my children's children will be thanking me. Right? Actually, the environmental organization, Greenpeace, says that this legislation "sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets." So lets tax ourselves sick, but it won't do enough according to science. What does this mean for energy companies?
"The key provisions of the bill include requiring electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020, investing $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, mandating new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry, introducing a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels, and protecting consumers from energy price increases."
What is wrong with this picture? The government is mandating current energy companies to invest in new 'clean energy technologies', technology deemed appropriate by the federal government. They are taking money from one sector of the industry to fund the expansion of another sector of an industry. The oil and gas industry will essentially be funding the growth of their competition.
This concept is not exclusive to Clean Energy. This new Obama Business Model is found in the Public Health Plan. This legislation is proposing to tax employer paid health care to help fund the government's new health care. Again, the government is taking money from one sector of the industry to fund the expansion of another sector of an industry. This is absolutely and unequivocably un-capitalistic and un-American. Yes, I said it, UN-AMERICAN. America was founded upon the principles of freedom, capitalism, the power of the dollar, and both of these massive pieces of legislation dismantle almost every aspect of what our economy was founded on!
5 comments:
I am seriously disgusted and scared at the same time. I just see us slipping further and further away from any possible form of recovery. I am scared for this country. Where is our freedom going?
Well, without the government mandating change in regards to the environment, it won't happen. It is much cheaper (more profitable) to rape and pillage the earth; keep doing things the antiquated way, that we know is causing all sorts of problems (problems for OURSELVES, I might add). The same way the government can step in and prevent price gauging on things like electricity, natural gas, etc. (because they are seen as needs, and because we have no choice on where to purchase these things), I don't see how it is inappropriate that the government mandate more responsible use of resources. The Earth doesn't just belong to the United States. It is in EVERYONE'S best interest to be good stewards of the earth. It doesn't mean that energy companies have to invest in their competition. They can BE the competition -- they don't have to be two separate sectors of the same industry. The point is it is long past due to change the way we consume energy and the kind of energy we consume. Energy companies need to begin to change the way they do things. They can change the way they acquire the energy they sell. I buy renewable energy from our electric company (which also happens to sell the "old fashioned", non-renewable kind of electricity as well). If energy companies aren't willing to change, adapt, update, etc., with the rest of the world and the changing times and new knowledge, well then it is their problem if they get gobbled up by the competition. These "new technologies" are not "deemed appropriate by the federal government" -- have you ever heard of the Kyoto Protocol? Most of the developed world agrees on these things -- in fact we are grossly behind, even in our new goals. In my opinion $175/year is nominal, less than $15 a month. I think that is a small price to pay, especially for more responsible living. (Even if it doesn't get us to where we "should" be, isn't improvement good? We've got to start somewhere...)
I think our biggest problem as Americans is thinking we are entitled and not having to "look in the mirror" at our behaviors and how they affect ourselves and the rest of the world. No accountability.
Gross Clan, I will completely agree with you that each person needs to be more responsible with their stewardship over the earth. We need to be more conscious of what we buy, how we dispose of our waste, be more energy efficient, etc.
However, our economy is capitalistic, free-market. Companies respond to consumer demand, not government force. More energy companies are providing renewable energy usage, giving discounts for those who use a recycling service, etc. Because the consumers are becoming more conscious. But when the federal government mandates not only what kind of energy they will use, but to invest in other types of energy, I will guarantee they will crumble, just as the auto industry has.
My BIGGEST argument against this legislation is how much more control the federal government will gain. I wouldn't have as strong an opinion if it was done at the state level. For example, Oklahoma (along with many other cities and states) have converted all of their post office vehicles to Natural Gas. It is much better for the environment, and in Oklahoma, it is great for our economy. This is the way it should be done. Through local efforts, not the federal government.
And how does this validate President Obama's campaign promise, which was made as often as "read my lips" with G.H.W, "I will not raise taxes on those earning $250K or less". So far, it sounds like my health benefits will be taxed and my electric/gas bills will increase because of taxes.
I agree more federal control isn't necessarily a good thing, but I don't understand how making the energy industry comply with guidelines is a bad thing. Personally, I am very thankful for the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, regulations against pesticides, and all the MANY other pieces of legislation that make our earth a little less poisonous.
A capitalistic, free-market economy -- ordinarily doesn't that include choices? The consumer chooses which product and from whom to buy it, whatever best fits their needs. I don't know about where you live, but I know I do not have a choice who to buy the natural gas from that heats my water and my house. I also have no choice where to buy my electricity from. This makes the energy industry DIFFERENT altogether. The energy industry isn't really a free market, I guess.
I DO have a choice from whom I buy a car, however (although it isn't my choice whether or not it can be overly polluting and still be legally on the road). The American auto industry crumbled because they weren't competitive with other auto makers. Isn't that the way of capitalism?
A big component to the crumble of Chrysler was Unions. Toyota, Honda etc. work in non-union states. Unions drive up the cost which resulted in them not being able to compete.
Post a Comment