I oppose H.R. 2454. It is a massive, across-the-board household energy tax being shoved down the throats of Americans under the moniker “cap-and-trade.”
H.R. 2454 will raise electricity rates by 90 percent, gasoline by 74 percent, and residential natural gas prices by 55 percent by 2035, after adjusting for inflation.
This bill will cap Americans’ standard of living and tax our use of products whose manufacture emits CO2.
H.R. 2454 will impose an annual burden of $144.8 billion per year on U.S. households, and it will reduce household earnings by a projected $37.8 billion.
H.R. 2454 will further cut U.S. employment levels by 965,000 jobs by reducing economic output by $136 billion per year—this translates to a $1,145 increase in energy costs per American household. [see estimated graduated cost, here and here] It will especially force low-income households to disproportionately bear the across-the-board energy cost increase, as a larger percentage of the poor’s income goes toward energy costs, as opposed to wealthier households.
It even sets the stage to effectively kill the coal industry as it will be taxed so heavily, it will not be able to sustain itself.
The majority of Americans oppose this bill. A recent Zogby International poll shows that only 30 percent of Americans support cap-and-tax, and 57 percent oppose it. The issue of “global warming” is even dead last among voter priorities, according to a Pew Research poll.
Cap-and-tax with the goal of energy-rationing is very dangerous. It’s dangerous for our already shrinking pocketbook as well as our standard of living and well-being. It is further proof that our current administration is hell bent on destroying our country, shrinking the wealth of the people and making the citizenry dependant on government.
Our government exists solely to perpetuate itself and line the pockets of people who no longer represent the people. What we have, again, in America, is taxation without representation.
Since the abject failure of Congress to read the bill at any level, other than what was read
by John Boehner, let me offer in rebuttal to the pseudo-science that passes for truth. Links below give information that flat out tells the story of how the “science” behind HR 2454 is all lies:
Limitations on AGW
Disproving AGW Problem
CO2 feedback refutation
Arctic & Greenland ice
Short Bio of Anti-Global Warming researcher
Skeptical AGW scientist
noaa data on water vapor
Pan evaporation abstract
Thermal expansion of seawater
No significant sea level rise
Details on Arctic temperature
Antarctic temperature over 200 years)
Commentaries on Global Warming
Under the Waxman-Markey climate bill … refiners would have to buy allowances for carbon dioxide spewed from their plants and from vehicles when motorists burn their fuel. Importswould need permits only for the latter, which ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said would create a competitive imbalance.
“It will lead to the opportunity for foreign sources to bring in transportation fuels at a lower cost, which will have an adverse impact to our industry, potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment,” Mulva said in a June 16 interview in Detroit. Houston-based ConocoPhillips has the second-largest U.S. refining capacity.
The same amount of gasoline that would have $1 in carbon costs imposed if it were domestic would have 10 cents less added if it were imported, according to energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie in Houston. Contrary to President Barack Obama’s goal of reducing dependence on overseas energy suppliers, the bill would incent U.S. refiners to import more fuel, said Clayton Mahaffey, an analyst at RedChip Cos. in Maitland, Florida. “They’ll be searching the globe for refined products that don’t carry the same level of carbon costs,” said Mahaffey, a former Exxon Corp. refinery manager.
The equivalent of one in six U.S. refineries probably would close by 2020 as the cost of carbon allowances erases profits, according to the American Petroleum Institute, a Washington trade group known as API. Carbon permits would add 77 cents a gallon to the price of gasoline, said Russell Jones, the API’s senior economic adviser.
“Because it’s going to be more expensive to produce the stuff, refiners will slow down production and cut back on inventories to squeeze every penny of profit they can from the system,” said Geoffrey Styles, founder of GSW Strategy Group LLC in Vienna, Virginia. “We will end up with less domestic product on the market and a greater reliance on imports, all of which means higher, more volatile prices.”
U.S. motorists, already facing the steepest jump in gasoline prices in 18 years, would bear the brunt as refiners pass on added costs, Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson told reporters after a May 27 meeting in Dallas.
Democrats in the House plan to bring the climate bill to a vote as soon as today. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, stopped short of predicting victory at a press conference yesterday, saying she was making progress in building support for the bill.
“U.S. refineries get 2 percent of allowances to cover any increases in costs they may incur,” said Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi.
Drivers, airlines and trucking companies would pay an additional $178 billion annually, or about $560 for each man, woman and child in the U.S., according to the API, whose 400 members include Irving, Texas-based Exxon Mobil and the U.S. unit of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Europe’s largest oil company.
“That kind of price impact would significantly hurt the competitiveness of U.S. refiners versus importers,” said Glenn McGinnis, chief executive officer at Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, a Phoenix-based company that’s attempting to build the nation’s first new refinery in three decades.
Such estimates and talk of rising imports are scare tactics that oil companies are using to wheedle concessions from lawmakers, said John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s chief lobbyist in Washington. Refiners are trying to gain relief on carbon- permit costs that’s meant for manufacturers such as steelmakers that are threatened by foreign competition, he said.
“It’s definitely saber rattling, and it’s a hell of a threat,” Coequyt said. “The strategic value of this is pretty obvious. They want to qualify for rebates under the competitiveness test, which of course they do not.”
GSW’s Styles, a former Texaco Inc. refinery and trading manager, said the risks are real. Plants unable to turn a profit under the new rules would be closed, he said.
The permit-cost imbalance would open the door for overseas refiners, such as India’s Reliance Industries Ltd., owner of the world’s largest crude-processing complex, to ship more fuel to U.S. oil companies, said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association in Washington.
Companies such as San Antonio-based Valero, the biggest U.S. refiner, will respond by stepping up efforts to acquire overseas plants that can ship fuel to their home market, said Brian Youngberg, an analyst at Edward Jones & Co. in Des Peres, Missouri. Valero said last week that it will continue to seek acquisition opportunities after Total SA bought the stake it had agreed to purchase in a Netherlands refining venture.
Carbon costs will stress fuel makers already coping with slumping fuel demand and higher costs to meet a federal mandate for increased ethanol use, said Roger Ihne, an energy client portfolio leader at Deloitte Consulting in Houston. Stricter mileage standards that take effect in 2011 will squeeze demand further, he said.
About 2 million barrels of daily U.S. refining capacity will shut down because carbon costs will be several times the operating profits for some plants, Ihne said. That’s equivalent to 12 percent of the nation’s fuel-making capacity. Jones, the API economist, said there could be as much as 3 million barrels of idled processing capacity.
“There’s no question there are some marginal refiners that probably will not survive,” said Exxon Mobil’sTillerson, whose company has the largest worldwide refining capacity. “They may go out of business.” Exxon Mobil derived 18 percent to 24 percent of its profit from refining in the past five years.
Neither Tillerson, 57, nor ConocoPhillipsCEO Mulva, 63, said how their companies would respond to climate rules like those in the Waxman-Markey bill. The legislation would cap emissions and create trading of allowances that polluters would need to meet their requirements.
Chevron CEO David O’Reilly, 62, said in a June 11 speech that the bill is “unnecessarily complex” and would be more damaging and less transparent than a carbon tax.
Chevron, based in San Ramon, California, fell 92 cents to $65.95 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading and has dropped 11 percent this year. Exxon Mobil, down 14 percent for the year, slid 83 cents to $69.05. ConocoPhillips fell 14 cents to $41.62, extending its year-to-date decline to 20 percent. Valero is down 24 percent for the year after dropping 21 cents to $16.48.
Refiners and brokers already import 3.12 million barrels of gasoline, diesel and other fuels each day, enough to supply every car, truck, train, airplane, boat and oil-burning power plant in Africa, U.S. Energy Department figures showed.
Those cargoes are in addition to the 9.76 million barrels of raw crude delivered to U.S. ports daily to supply refineries and chemicals plants. Foreign shipments of crude, gasoline and other fuels provide 66 percent of the petroleum burned in the world’s largest economy, according to the Energy Department.
Carbon prices will soar as U.S. refiners compete with each other and other industrial companies for a limited number of allowances, said Bill Durbin, head of carbon research and global energy markets at Wood Mackenzie.
Durbin, a former policy official in the Energy Department during the George H.W. Bush administration, said permit prices may top $100 a ton. Oil companies and their products emit more than 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year in the U.S., according to the Energy Department.
This is the antithesis of stimulus and will spiral the country straight into a Depression the likes we have never seen.
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.
The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.
New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.
The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.
“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.
The beginning of the draft reads:
“We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups…as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation.”
The Senate today overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 13) that would prohibit a future cap-and-trade initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from causing higher electricity rates and gas prices for U.S. households and businesses.
“The increased utility and fuel costs that would result from cap-and-trade legislation, as proposed by President Obama, would equate to a national sales tax on energy that would affect every family in America,” said Sen. John Thune (R-SD), the amendment’s sponsor, following the 89 to 8 vote on his proposal.
The Senate also adopted a proposal by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) — largely on party lines — requiring that revenues obtained from upcoming global warming legislation be used to refund consumers for the price hikes via tax rebates.
“It is not a tax,” countered Boxer, who also voted in favor of the Thune amendment. “Any kind of cap-and-trade system that comes forward will not raise energy and gas prices.”
Isn’t this the same song and dance from the health care? I do no believe her, and agree with Thune.
Thune disagreed during a press conference today, voicing his doubts that Boxer’s tax rebate proposal would ever reach consumers.
“[Cap-and-trade] revenues are going to go to fund all these different things [Democrats] want to do,” Thune asserted, pointing to health care reform as one example.