Senate Ponders Where To Send Cap And Trade Revenue

| Thu Oct. 22, 2009 3:25 AM PDT

With most of Washington's attention focused on health care reform, it's easy to forget that Democrats are also working on a cap-and-trade bill to combat climate change. On September 30, Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced their version of the cap-and-trade bill that passed the House back in June. But the Kerry-Boxer bill has a big piece missing: it says almost nothing about how pollution permits will be allocated. Grist explains why: "Doling out what is effectively a huge new pot of money is a subject of considerable interest to many senators, and it’s expected to help bring some recalcitrant Democrats on board."

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee discussed exactly this topic at a hearing on Wednesday. Kate Sheppard will have more on this later in the week, but here were a couple of the less constructive suggestions:

Advertisement

"What a mess! Taking money from people in order to cure the planet that has no impact on people’s standard of living," exclaimed Republican senator Robert Bennett of Utah. (He may have overlooked the economic dangers posed by Katrina-like disasters, rising sea levels, higher ocean temperatures and acid levels—not to mention increased temperatures and water scarcity in Utah, Bennett’s home state.)

Bennett instead promoted the merits of a carbon charge instead of a cap-and-trade system. But as panelist Dr. Denny Ellerman from the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research pointed out, a carbon tax would present "exactly the same problem of what to do with revenue."

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) had what you might call a more complicated take. First, he voiced his skepticism of climate change. "In the early '80s we were going to have an ice age. The science is not perfect," he said, referring to the widely debunked theory of global cooling. Then, abruptly he shifted to his concerns that China and India are never going to take responsibility for their carbon emissions. "I worry about that because I have 40 grandkids."

For the sake of Bunning's progeny, then, let's hope the Senate makes some headway.

Rachael is a Media Consortium editorial intern at Mother Jones’ DC bureau.

Comments

Using the money to buy

Submitted by CC26 (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 3:47 AM PDT.

Using the money to buy Senators' votes sounds just as constructive. These votes would need to be bought because those recalcitrant Democrats understand that cap and trade is going to hit their states hard, especially the mining and manufacturing industries. They will see lost jobs and increased energy rates for constituents who can ill afford either. Make sure your Senators' votes aren't bought, tell them how cap and trade will affect you at http://tiny.cc/pxIgi.

http://www.purelife-shoes.com

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 8:10 AM PDT.

http://www.purelife-shoes.com/: UGG boots, UGG Classic Tall Boots, UGG Classic Cardy boots, UGG Classic Metallic Boots, UGG Classic Mini Boots, UGG Classic Short Boots, UGG Ultra Short Boots, UGG Ultra Tall Boots, UGG Bailey Button Boots, UGG Nightfall Boots, UGG Sundance II Boots, UGG Boots 5812, UGG Boots 5802, UGG Boots 5819, UGG Boots 5854, UGG Boots 5825, UGG Boots 5815, UGG Boots 5225, UGG Boots 5899, UGG Boots 5816, UGG Boots 5817, UGG Boots 5818, UGG Boots 5245, UGG Boots 5803, UGG Boots 5359, UGG Boots 5325, Timberland shoes, Gucci shoes, Prada shoes
http://www.purelife-bags.com/: Gucci bags, Coach bags, Prada bags
http://www.purelife-glasses.com/: Adidas sunglassess, D&G sunglasses , Dior sunglasses
http://www.purelife-jersey.com: MLB jerseys, NFL jerseys, NBA jerseys, NHL jerseys

" (He may have overlooked

Submitted by Dave the AGW Denier (not verified) on Thu Oct. 22, 2009 10:20 AM PDT.

" (He may have overlooked the economic dangers posed by Katrina-like disasters, rising sea levels, higher ocean temperatures and acid levels—not to mention increased temperatures and water scarcity in Utah, Bennett’s home state.)"

Showing your bias a bit aren't you? Or your ignorance, Rachel? Are you aware that the satelite data shows the Earth warming mildly - 0.6 degrees F from 1979 until 1998, then cooling around half of that from 1998, until now. That is actually two different sets of satelite measurements... Only the land based records, which have selectively quit showing nearly 80% of their stations over the last 30 years, show greater heat and less cooling, and by their records, we've been cooling for 7-8 years, depending. The Arctic summer Extent has outpaced the previous year by 500,000 square feet two years in a row.

Warmists who were published (gleefully) 2 years ago and last year saying the Actic Ocean would have ice free summers in 5 years, are now being published (gleefully, without previous reference to their missed forecast) as saying the Actic Ocean could be ice free in 10 years and I saw one today saying in 20 years. Some warmists are saying we could see 30 years of further cooling, then the warming will re-assert itself... Convenient for a 30-40 year old scientist who wants to keep his grants. $150 Billion will be spent next year Worldwide by Governments eager to tax or fossil fuels, by estimate.

Wouldn't you say that it would be responsible to define that there is a problem, before anyone mandates an expensive solution? The Australian Senate just killed their Cap and Rob legislation and nearly 60% of their population actually believe the AGW Hoax. And we should drink the Kool Aid and step off the cliff in a country where more than 1/2 don't believe the Science? Where the Climate Scare was rated 30th on a list of 30 topics for prioritization???

I would guess that Senators that vote for this farce will find themselves on the same list of "endangered politicians, with shortened professional prospects" very similar to the Reps in the House who ignored their constituents and passed that Ghastley Waxman Bill and were crucified in town home meetings nationwide. Let's face it, when you have to lie and cheat and bribe your fellows to get "landmark" legislation, someone has to ask - why now, why ever?