Sen. Lamar Alexander today had harsh words for Sens. Barbara Boxer and John Kerry's new attempt at climate and energy legislation, which is NOT a cap and trade bill. Apparently calling something cap and trade is poison, so now they're rebranding their energy trading scheme as "pollution reduction and investment." But it's not fooling anyone, certainly not Alexander:
"These are fancy, complicated words for high-cost energy that sends jobs overseas looking for cheap energy. Instead, we should take practical steps to produce low-cost, clean, carbon-free energy and create jobs. Specifically, we should build 100 new nuclear plants, electrify half our cars and trucks, expand exploration offshore for American natural gas and oil, and double funding for energy research and development."The new euphemism probably has something to do with GOP efforts to rebrand cap and trade as "cap and tax," or, less politely, "crap and tax." Language-guru Frank Luntz, responsible for turning global warming into "climate change," among other linguistic feats, explained why cap and trade was a poor choice back in May.
The Senate bill follows the House version (HR 2454), which squeaked by
in late June by a vote of 219 - 212. The idea is to raise energy prices
on dirty forms of fuel, such as coal, by placing a cost on each ton of
carbon emitted by a company, then allowing companies to trade unused permits on a market. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed what effect HR 2454 would have on individual households, and estimated the cost to be $175 per household but varying by income level. Scroll down to the bottom of the report for a breakdown.
While the thrust of both the House and Senate proposals is undoubtedly ambitious, so is building 100 nuclear plants and electrifying half America's auto and truck fleets. The question is, without either a financial incentive to invest in alternative or nuclear energy, or regulations and subsidies to bring new technologies to market, how do you get there?
While the thrust of both the House and Senate proposals is undoubtedly ambitious, so is building 100 nuclear plants and electrifying half America's auto and truck fleets. The question is, without either a financial incentive to invest in alternative or nuclear energy, or regulations and subsidies to bring new technologies to market, how do you get there?
Leave a comment