Report: Current TV staffers grumpy at Gore over this Al Jazeera sale

Why would they want to restrict CO2 emissions? Their goal is and always has been to generate a new source of income:

Waxman, Whitehouse, Blumenauer, and Schatz Release Carbon Price Discussion Draft
To quote from the discussion draft on a carbon tax linked above:

The legislation would establish the polluter pays principle for dangerous carbon pollution, requiring large emitters to pay for the pollution they emit.

The “discussion draft” released today contains a new and straightforward approach to putting a price on carbon pollution. The nation’s largest polluters would have to pay a fee for each ton of pollution they release. The legislation assigns responsibility for the assessment and collection of the carbon fees based upon the expertise that has already been developed by EPA and the Treasury Department. Under the discussion draft, EPA’s database of reported emissions would determine the amount of pollution subject to the fee. The Treasury Department would be responsible for the collection and handling of the fees.

They aren’t talking insignificant government revenues either.

The Members and Senators are soliciting comments on the discussion draft from stakeholders and the public. Although comments on any aspect of the draft are welcome, the Lawmakers are specifically requesting feedback on the following questions:

1. What is the appropriate price per ton for polluters to pay? The draft contains alternative prices of $15, $25, and $35 per ton for discussion purposes.

2. How much should the price per ton increase on an annual basis? The draft contains a range of increases from 2% to 8% per year for discussion purposes.

3. What are the best ways to return the revenue to the American people? The discussion draft proposes putting the revenue toward the following goals, and solicits comments on how to best accomplish each: (1) mitigating energy costs for consumers, especially low-income consumers; (2) reducing the Federal deficit; (3) protecting jobs of workers at trade-vulnerable, energy intensive industries; (4) reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses; and (5) investing in other activities to reduce carbon pollution and its effects.

4. How should the carbon fee program interact with state programs that address carbon pollution?

All comments are welcome and can be submitted by email to cutcarbon@mail.house.gov. The Lawmakers are requesting that comments be submitted no later than April 12, 2013.

This is and always has been about redistribution of wealth.

The average coal fire power plant in the US emits 3,500,000 tons of CO2 annually.

At the low end, that means an additional $50,000,000 in costs annually…per power plant. Power plants have the luxury of passing those costs directly to their consumers through higher electricity rates.

I am just guessing that the Treasury will be passing out checks to low income people in excess of the increase in their electric bill, and wealthy individuals will see their electric bill increase in excess of their check from the treasury.

Manufacturers based in the US who also emit CO2 will be doubly hit and probably be forced to close up shop or move overseas. They get the increased electricity rate in addition to the fee on their emissions. The problem is, unlike utilities, they face competition from imports and therefore cannot simply raise their prices.

I do not oppose regulation of greenhouse gases based on a belief/non-belief of global warming. I oppose regulation of greenhouse gases because every proposal is masked from its true intention, wealth redistribution.

At this point I don’t care if global warming is real or not, and neither do the EPA or the Democrats in Washington.

weaselyone on March 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM