View Full Version : House narrowly passes major energy-climate bill
Monsoon65
06-26-2009, 18:51
More "hope and change" from the Obama Politburo. If this passes in the Senate, it's going to mean higher taxes, more unemployed, and a long cold winter for most.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_go_co/us_climate_bill
By H. JOSEF HEBERT and DINA CAPPIELLO, Associated Press Writers H. Josef Hebert And Dina Cappiello, Associated Press Writers – 1 hr 9 mins ago
WASHINGTON – In a triumph for President Barack Obama, the Democratic-controlled House narrowly passed sweeping legislation Friday that calls for the nation's first limits on pollution linked to global warming and aims to usher in a new era of cleaner, yet more costly energy.
The vote was 219-212, capping months of negotiations and days of intense bargaining among Democrats. Republicans were overwhelmingly against the measure, arguing it would destroy jobs in the midst of a recession while burdening consumers with a new tax in the form of higher energy costs.
The House's action fulfilled Speaker Nancy Pelosi's vow to clear major energy legislation before July 4, and sent the measure to a highly uncertain fate in the Senate.
Obama lobbied recalcitrant Democrats by phone from the White House as the debate unfolded across several hours, and Al Gore posted a statement on his Web site saying the measure represents "an essential first step towards solving the climate crisis." The former vice president won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work drawing attention to the destructive potential of global warming.
On the House floor, Democrats hailed the legislation as historic, while Republicans said it would damage the economy without solving the nation's energy woes.
It is "the most important energy and environmental legislation in the history of our country," said Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts. "It sets a new course for our country, one that steers us away from foreign oil and towards a path of clean American energy."
But Rep. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, used an extraordinary one-hour speech shortly before the final vote to warn of unintended consequences in what he said was a "defining bill." He called it a "bureaucratic nightmare" that would cost jobs, depress real estate prices and put the government into parts of the economy where it now has no role.
The legislation would require the U.S. to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent by mid-century. That was slightly more aggressive than Obama originally wanted, 14 percent by 2020 and the same 80 percent by mid-century.
U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are rising at about 1 percent a year and are predicted to continue increasing without mandatory limits.
Under the bill, the government would limit heat-trapping pollution from factories, refineries and power plants and issue allowances for polluters. Most of the allowances would be given away, but about 15 percent would be auctioned by bid and the proceeds used to defray higher energy costs for lower-income individuals and families.
"Some would like to do more. Some would like to do less," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said in advance of the final vote. "But we have reached a compromise ... and it is a compromise that can pass this House, pass that Senate, be signed by the president and become law and make progress."
One of the biggest compromises involved the near total elimination of an administration plan to sell pollution permits and raise more than $600 billion over a decade — money to finance continuation of a middle class tax cut. About 85 percent of the permits are to be given away rather than sold in a ceoncession to energy companies and their allies in the House — and even that is uncertain to survive in the Senate.
The final bill also contained concessions to satisfy farm-state lawmakers, ethanol producers, hydroelectric advocates, the nuclear industry and others, some of them so late that they were not made public until 3 a.m. on Friday.
Supporters and opponents agreed the result would be higher energy costs but disagreed vigorously on the impact on consumers. Democrats pointed to two reports — one from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the other from the Environmental Protection Agency — that suggested average increases would be limited after tax credits and rebates were taken into account. The CBO estimated the bill would cost an average household $175 a year, the EPA $80 to $110 a year.
Republicans questioned the validity of the CBO study and noted that even that analysis showed actual energy production costs increasing $770 per household. Industry groups have cited other studies showing much higher costs to the economy and to individuals.
The White House and congressional Democrats argued the bill would create millions of "green jobs" as the nation shifts to greater reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar and development of more fuel-efficient vehicles — and away from use of fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal.
It will "make our nation the world leader on clean energy jobs and technology," declared Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who negotiated deals with dozens of lawmakers in recent weeks to broaden the bill's support.
Pelosi, D-Calif., took an intense personal interest in the measure, sitting through hours of meetings with members of the rank and file and nurturing fragile compromises.
At its heart, the bill was a trade-off, less than the White House initially sought though it was more than Republicans said was acceptable. Some of the dealmaking had a distinct political feel. Rep. Alan Grayson, a first-term Democrat, won a pledge of support that $50 million from the proceeds of pollution permit sales in the bill would go to a proposed new hurricane research facility in his district in Orlando, Fla.
"This is revolutionary. This is a moment in history," declared Markey, a co-sponsor of the bill.
Republicans saw it differently.
This "amounts to the largest tax increase in American history under the guise of climate change," declared Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.
It may create "green jobs" but at the expense of "non green" jobs and even more taxes when we are hurting badly. I was not convinced that this bill was anything other than more bad plans by the current administration. Some of the speakers against this bill were claiming ~100 monthly increase in electricity bills for his residents (Iowa). As was said during the debates, this is more of a ploy to federalize every aspect of American business.
Another bill slammed through with no time for review....anyone that still believes the .GOV hasn't been hijacked (a quiet coup) needs their head examined.
Welcome to Amerika, the USS of A.....Comrades.
How is a seven vote margin of victory a "triumph"?
If the legislation passes the Senate by such a small margin, there will be cracks to exploit during the midterms.
These cracks will not be widened in time to stop this ill conceived bill, but the president will hardly be able to cry "Triumph" unless he's expecting a certain insult comic dog to visit the White House and say, "Hey, that's a marvelous lawn you've got there..."
Defender968
06-27-2009, 06:26
Another bill slammed through with no time for review....anyone that still believes the .GOV hasn't been hijacked (a quiet coup) needs their head examined.
Welcome to Amerika, the USS of A.....Comrades.
They just said the phone lines were slammed yesterday in D.C. with people calling in to ask their representatives to vote no on this bill. I wonder if they even read it:mad: I agree with you Paslode we are no longer represented, but sadly our politicians were voted in and kept in power by the majority of the populace so we're going to have to sit back and watch the mayhem unfold. This is exactly what I expected the night of the election, it’s sad, just plain sad.
Sounds all too familiar to me...and others. ;)
We know the boilerplate: The President outlines the problem, punctuated with those awful “them” and “they” and “some” and “others” who as extremists stand in the way of all good things and present “false choices,” but remain unnamed. (Sort of like the tropes in 1984).
Then the standard references come to “the mess we inherited,” the “prior administration,” and “what we found.” These are the prefaces to his reluctance to … (fill in the blanks: run the private sector, spend massive amounts of money, take over health care, raise taxes, etc.). Then he pauses, takes a deep breath, and in fact outlines ways to take over GM, regulate compensation, run up massive deficits, nationalize health care, and plan record tax hikes.
Then he finishes with variations on the old campaign formula “this is the moment,” “hope and change,” “yes, we can,” “we will not be deterred.”
No one can quite believe that one has just heard Obama deny that he’s going to do exactly what he then outlines he is going to do — but at least for the last six months this deception sounded good.
What Do These First Six Months Mean?
Victor Davis Hanson, 25 Jun 2009
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson062509.html
But then there are those who want even more.
When it comes to domestic policy, there are two Barack Obamas.
On one side there’s Barack the Policy Wonk, whose command of the issues — and ability to explain those issues in plain English — is a joy to behold.
But on the other side there’s Barack the Post-Partisan, who searches for common ground where none exists, and whose negotiations with himself lead to policies that are far too weak.
Not Enough Audacity
Paul Krugman, NYT, 25 Jun 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/opinion/26krugman.html?em
Richard's $.02 :munchin
How is a seven vote margin of victory a "triumph"?
If the legislation passes the Senate by such a small margin, there will be cracks to exploit during the midterms.
Call it what you want, it passed and that's a win for Obama and his minions, and a loss for the American people. Again. Too bad many won't/don't/can't see it.
...... Again. Too bad many won't/don't/can't see it.
Like most bills passed, I wonder how many congresscritters read the entire bill before voting on it?
Like most bills passed, I wonder how many congresscritters read the entire bill before voting on it?
My guess is not many, close to none. And if they do, as long as "their stuff" is in there they just don't care about the rest.
In agreement with the points being made by QP Pete and Gypsy, I would add the following two cents.
It is ironic that, as candidate and president-elect, the guy promised a new way of politics (most notably, his abandoned pledge for "openness"). Then, upon taking the oath of office, he immediately turned to the practice of which he'd been most critical: using a state of crisis to hasten the formulation and implementation of policy.
The president likes to speak of the "crossroads of history." He likes to lecture us that if we choose the wrong path now, we're screwed.
What he seems not to realize is that America has often been at the crossroads of history, and not just at the history of the United States but also the western world. Sometimes, America has made choices which it later came to reconsider and to revise, and even to regret. But generally, the choices were made after long and careful debate.
Instead, the president proceeds from the assumption that he knows what is best for us. This paternalism is nothing new. And that's exactly the point. Welcome back, Carter? It is starting to look like the Wilson administration to me.
ETA. The attached photo shows a triumphant speaker of the house demonstrating how she wins debates within her party, with the current president, and with her husband.
Red Flag 1
06-27-2009, 14:18
Like most bills passed, I wonder how many congresscritters read the entire bill before voting on it?
Why should "they" read? That is a waste of "valuable" time.......that is a staff function. If unread, well no harm in that.
The job of congersscritters is to look pretty and get re-elected.
Votes while in office are cast with an eye to the oval office and the party.....what else really matters??
My $.02.:mad:
RF 1
Like most bills passed, I wonder how many congresscritters read the entire bill before voting on it?
What I heard on the AM Radio (Fox or CNN I believe) yesterday, was that the document was 1200 pages deep, 300 of those pages were thrown in at the last minute and that 'they' (I will assume our so-called representatives) had hired 'Speed Readers' to make heads and tails of the bill.
It would appear to me that 1600 Pennsylvania Ave represent more a 3 Ring Circus and a Side Show of Freaks than it does a model of Government.
Come one, come all, to the greatest show on earth!
GratefulCitizen
06-27-2009, 17:30
Congress seems to be infested with people who aren't detail-oriented.
Such people can't be bothered with economic facts.
How many of these critters have run successful businesses?
(If we raise prices and keep the same volume, profits will increase!! :rolleyes: )
Congress seems to be infested with people who aren't detail-oriented.
Such people can't be bothered with economic facts.
How many of these critters have run successful businesses?
(If we raise prices and keep the same volume, profits will increase!! :rolleyes: )
Well......
I would hedge my bet, that just as EPA standards drove many Industries such as Steel overseas so will this scam of Cap & Trade. Areas that rely on these industries will become blighted just as the Steel Towns. If you live in an area that relies on Coal for electricity plan on lowering your living standards. If you have business vehicles plan on taking in the shorts for fuel or close your doors. If you are a farmer your live stock will be taxed for farting...etc...etc...etc.
As a consumer feel the pain of Obama's version of trickle down economics, the pain of paying more for everything required to sustain your way of life.
What these treasonous bastards are accomplishing is the destruction what little brick and mortar we have left in this country.
And while the traitors in DC pass all these feel good bills that penalize fellow Americans, China and many other countries will continue doing business as usual blowing black soot from their smoke stacks, manufacture goods with slave labor and suck up all the industries our Government has decided to disgard.
JMO..........Some folks with deep pockets paid a lot of money to bring this country to this point, and they will make even more in profits with the Green Technology Industry.
Welcome to Hope and Change.
As a side note the most news worthy headline during this debacle...........JACKO!!!! Another (media made) crisis that wasn't wasted which camoflauged this entire debate.....just like everyother bill they slam through................A conspiracy theory in the making.
The Reaper
06-28-2009, 11:06
Exactly.
And an ever increasing number of Americans will be on the dole and dependent on the state for their welfare.
Maybe what the Community Organizer really wants. A Saul Alinsky state with a dependent underclass to keep them in office forever.
Or until the state collapses.
TR
GratefulCitizen
06-28-2009, 16:30
Back at the beginning of the month, Senator Inhofe saw this coming and was not worried.
He has been leading the fight against the chickens-little for some time.
I don't know what to think about the chances in the Senate.
I hope he's right.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090603094659.aspx
Not too long ago, global warming activism in the U.S. Capitol made some sort of carbon cap-and-trade legislation seem like a near certainty. But the tide may be turning.
According to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking Republican of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, a key committee needed for passage of a cap-and-trade bill, the trend indicates it can’t pass, at least in the U.S. Senate. He explained that the House, under the leadership of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, will pass anything, but it takes both houses of Congress for it to become law.
“I want to tell you what’s going to happen from this point forward in my opinion,” Inhofe said at the Heartland Institute’s Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. on June 2. “First of all, the House will pass anything. Nancy Pelosi has the votes to pass anything. Don’t be distressed when you see the House passes some kind of cap-and-trade bill. And you know it could be worse [than the proposed bill] and she could still pass it, so it’ll pass there.”
One possibility some have suggested is that the Environmental Protection Agency would impose cap-and-trade regulations under the Clean Air Act, a law that gives the EPA authority to regulate pollution in the name of protecting the nation’s air quality. That according to Inhofe can be stalled until President Barack Obama leaves office.
“The EPA has threatened to regulate this through the Clean Air Act,” Inhofe explained. “That isn’t going to work in my opinion because we can stall that until we get a new president – that shouldn’t be a problem.”
But, the key component of the legislative process under these circumstances would be the U.S. Senate. Inhofe pointed to a measure that would require any climate treaty to include developing nations to self-impose the carbon restrictions for the United States to also go along with it.
“While the House will pass the bill … in the Senate, they’re not going to be able to pass it,” Inhofe said. “You guys – it’s just not going to happen. Now we have a history of what’s happened in the Senate. We had the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Remember that’s where we passed by a 94-1, I think it was, saying we don’t want to ratify any treaty – the Senate doesn’t – that doesn’t include developing nations with developed nations. Well, that stuck with us.”
Inhofe explained that in 2003 and 2005, he was able to nearly single-handedly take down a bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Liebermann, I-Conn., which would have set a cap-and-trade system in place.
“Yet, with very popular people, like McCain and Liebermann coming up in ’03 and then again in ’05 – the reason I’m going to tell you that they don’t have the votes, it’s not going to pass is that in ’05, that’s when I was on the floor for eight hours a day, five days, or about 10 hours a days, 50 hours – is that only two senators would come to the floor that would help me with this because I was taking on McCain and Liebermann on this silly issue.”
But, in 2008 with a similar bill sponsored by Sens. Liebermann and John Warner, R-Va., he had gained significant support compared to his 2003 and 2005 efforts, showing a trend that passage of this type of bill is becoming increasingly more difficult.
“And you fast forward to one year ago today, 2008 – Warner-Liebermann,” Inhofe said. “It didn’t take five days, it took two days – 23 senators came down to help me out on this issue, because I told [California Democratic Sen.] Barbara Boxer to you know, get over it, get a life. You lost, we won.”
The Oklahoma senator credited the Founding Fathers, noting that the senate rules put in place are a difficult obstacle for the global warming activists in the federal government to overcome.
“It will pass in the House, in the Senate it will not pass,” Inhofe continued. “And her latest vote and she won’t admit this, but it’s 34 votes and it takes 60 votes in the Senate. Maybe the people who wrote our constitution knew what they were talking about.”
I'm very angry with Mark Kirk (from my state) for breaking ranks and voting for this bill, claiming he read the whole thing. Yeah, right. :mad:
Back at the beginning of the month, Senator Inhofe saw this coming and was not worried.
He has been leading the fight against the chickens-little for some time.
I don't know what to think about the chances in the Senate.
I hope he's right.
"According to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the ranking Republican of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, a key committee needed for passage of a cap-and-trade bill, the trend indicates it can’t pass, at least in the U.S. Senate. He explained that the House, under the leadership of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, will pass anything, but it takes both houses of Congress for it to become law."
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090603094659.aspx
Inhofe is a Cool Cat around these parts...and he knows that he will be held accountable for his decisions. He does, after all, have to play a round or two at our local championship golf course every now and again.
And those rounds don't come cheap...
Holly:munchin
Exactly.
And an ever increasing number of Americans will be on the dole and dependent on the state for their welfare.
Maybe what the Community Organizer really wants. A Saul Alinsky state with a dependent underclass to keep them in office forever.
Or until the state collapses.
TR
Ah yes, the counter personality of the Angry American. If you used the 80/20 rule you have 8 sheeple/fence sitters who throw up their arms and cower to every 2 that are willing to get involved.
But if I recall history correctly our Revolutionary Founding Fathers found themselves with similar odds.
Aside from increasing apathy, what my Mom fears is that with each trend change, the trend being liberal or conservative, that change will become more extreme.
Time will till how our predicament pans out.
GYPSY:
I'm very angry with Mark Kirk (from my state) for breaking ranks and voting for this bill, claiming he read the whole thing. Yeah, right
You mean THIS Mark Kirk:
Betrayed by my Republican Congressman
Nancy Thorner
There is much outrage in the 10th District where I live.
My 10th District congressman, Mark Kirk, has the dubious distinction of being the only Republican member of the Illinois congressional delegation, and one of only eight Republicans nationwide, who voted on Friday, June 26, for the Waxman-Markey energy bill (HR 2454), commonly referred to as "Cap and Trade" or "Global Warming" bill. The bill narrowly passed the House with a vote of 219 to 212.
I would imagine that the same outrage exists in the congressional districts represented by all eight of the renegade Republicans. It is frowned upon to criticize fellow Republicans, but this defection cannot be brushed aside.
Radical and unjustified: Votes of eight renegade Republicans
Forty four wise Democrats crossed party lines to vote against the bill, while Kirk and seven other Republicans chose to ignore the 300-page amendment that was dropped into the mostly unread 1,000 page bill early in the morning on June 16, leaving no time to read the additional 300 pages and which turned the bill into an even more regulative and economic monstrosity.
Although Mark Kirk is proud to define himself as a moderate Republican with strong environmental leanings, he has put himself on record as supporting radical legislation that would result in economic pain for his constituents with little or no environmental gain.
It might be that Kirk has sealed his political future -- Kirk has expressed interest in running statewide here in Illinois for U.S. Senate or governor -- with his "yes" vote on the Democrat's Global Warming bill, after voters learn what is in the 1,300 page bill? Unfortunately Kirk has become more liberal in many ways than many moderate Democrats in Congress.
The Waxman-Markey bill is instead a job killer. Especially hard hit would be energy-intensive sectors such as manufacturers, farmers, construction, machinery, transportation, and plastics.
Consumers will also pay more for all goods and services since just about everything we do and produce uses energy. Hardest hit by the draconian energy tax would be working families, but the tax would affect everyone whether rich, poor or in between.
What was Congressman Mark Kirk thinking? Did he make a devilish deal to become one of eight Republican turncoats? And what about the other seven Republican traitors in the U.S. Congress? It is unconscionable that they voted for the most massive tax increase and interference with private property ever! As such they should and are likely to face stiff opposition in 2010.
Hopefully the U.S. Senate will have more sense and will not ascribe to the ill-advised House version of the energy bill. If similar legislation is passed in the senate, it would be a bad deal for America and a devastating man-made disaster. Every effort must be made to defeat what would amount to a misguided approach to this nation's energy needs.
Utah Bob
06-29-2009, 07:04
God knows what else is hidden in this 1,000 page turkey.
IF this thing gets past the Senate, we'll all be going GREEN!
Richard's $.02 :munchin
GYPSY:
You mean THIS Mark Kirk:
That's the one. He's a Commander in the Naval Reserve. Intelligence. Could have fooled me.
Selling a house sometime soon?
Better make sure it passes the Green Inspection.
I heard of the death of a dear friend to the American people a long time ago. Mr. Common Sense. So sad, but here is what at least one Congressperson thinks about this bill. LINK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqZdC3UP74g)
A tad off topic, but I heard this being discussed yesterday on Sean Hannity with this CongressWoman. It's a petition to stop ACORN from accessing taxpayer money. I had to sign it. Petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/TaxDollars/)
Too bad all these congress people have "donate this, and donate that" on their websites.:rolleyes: Kinda cheapens the experience.
Selling a house sometime soon?
Better make sure it passes the Green Inspection.
My guess if the bill passes, quaint little 1950's Leave to Beaver neighborhoods like mine will end up being razed in favor of something more Eco Friendly.....either reclaimed prairie or Modular Smart Homes.
At some point Zero and Crew will probably require that the homeless living in cardboard boxes only live in boxes with a certain R-Value.
Timing is everything. In the weeks leading up to this ridiculous fleece of legislation its been found that the EPA had covered up information that SHOULD have been DIRECTLY linked to some of the measures voted on....
...maybe the conress didnt know.
Now it goes to the senate just in time for SNL alumni Al (not even funny when he was a comedian) Franken to give his party a filibuster proof senate.
This party is just getting started.
Workers displaced due to new emission regulations would be entitled to 156 weeks (3 years) of income supplement (70 percent of their average weekly wages), 80 percent of their monthly health-care premium, up to $1,500 for job-search assistance, and up to $1,500 for moving assistance
Not to mention the retraining program for workers who want to transition to "green" jobs.
My guess if the bill passes, quaint little 1950's Leave to Beaver neighborhoods like mine will end up being razed in favor of something more Eco Friendly.....either reclaimed prairie or Modular Smart Homes.
At some point Zero and Crew will probably require that the homeless living in cardboard boxes only live in boxes with a certain R-Value.
IMHO, a more immediate concern is the practice being seen in some municipalities to use existing building codes and parking requirements in efforts to cleanse ethnically areas of cities.
So far, I've only seen this approach used where ethnic tensions were an issue. (In one case, the alleged cause of the tension was the belief that there was an illegal alien problem.:rolleyes: It is amazing what one can learn from counting parked cars.:cool:)
But the same tactics can easily be used against anyone. If you use your garage as a storage / work / leisure area and park your vehicles on the street. If you have added rooms to your house and not made provisions for parking. If you have expanding your home and all of your paperwork and permits aren't in order. If your home isn't properly bolted down. If your retaining wall isn't up to code. If you once received a conditional use permit and now want to redevelop your property.
IMHO, a more immediate concern is the practice being seen in some municipalities to use existing building codes and parking requirements in efforts to cleanse ethnically areas of cities.
So far, I've only seen this approach used where ethnic tensions were an issue. (In one case, the alleged cause of the tension was the belief that there was an illegal alien problem.:rolleyes: It is amazing what one can learn from counting parked cars.:cool:)
But the same tactics can easily be used against anyone. If you use your garage as a storage / work / leisure area and park your vehicles on the street. If you have added rooms to your house and not made provisions for parking. If you have expanding your home and all of your paperwork and permits aren't in order. If your home isn't properly bolted down. If your retaining wall isn't up to code. If you once received a conditional use permit and now want to redevelop your property.
So I am guessing this is how it works out West were you live?
So I am guessing this is how it works out West were you live?
It's how zoning laws work everywhere.
If you own property zoning laws can hurt or help you depending on who is sitting on the zoning board and if you donated to their political fund.
6.8SPC_DUMP
11-23-2009, 16:54
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the "Cap & Trade" bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.
The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.
No one is excluded.
However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.
But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:
A year from now you won't be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.
The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes ("mobile homes") are included.
In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a "label" in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
If you don't get a high enough rating, you can't sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.
The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009") and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government's best interest. Requirements are set low initial y so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.
The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings.
However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.
Sect. 202:
Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .
Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won't be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.
You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.
You should expect requirements such as "can't have an income of more than $50K per year", "home selling price can't be more than $125K", or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that's YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won't get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more "change you can believe in."
Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for "at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."
This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.
Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.
And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often - maybe every year.
But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.
Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.
Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.
a license required for your home - Google Search
H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)
__________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signed, Frank Carrio, CMI
Certified Master Inspector & Consultant
Certified Commercial Building Inspector
Certified, WDI Inspector
Founder & Current President, New Hampshire State Chapter NACHI
NACHI, State Representative for Legislative Affairs
Retired: ICC Certified Member
Retired: Code Compliance Inspector.
Retired: ASTM Committee Member
Go Devil
11-23-2009, 17:38
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/
It would be a shame if the ol' shack burned to the ground while retrofitting to meet standards.;)
I have a feeling I will be one of the few to be fined for not complying with this act. Just another bill they send me that will never receive one cent from my pocket. They are making it hard for me to decide if I am still an American, or more accurately, if they are still Americans. Either way, the thing our fore fathers did do was produce free poeple, and the blood from my veins will need to be drained if anyone wishes me to be sapped of freedom.
These people, including Al Gore, should be thrown in jail for fraud..:mad:
Climategate: how the MSM reported the greatest scandal in modern science
Here’s what the Times has had to say on the subject:
E-mails allegedly written by some of the world’s leading climate scientists have been stolen by hackers and published on websites run by climate change sceptics.
The sceptics claim that the e-mails are evidence that scientists manipulated data in order to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.
(Yep – definitely an improvement on their earlier, non-existent coverage; but not exactly pointing up the scandalousness of this scandal).
And the Independent:
(Yep. Nada).
And here’s how The New York Times (aka Pravda) reported it:
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.
(Yep. That’s right. It has only apparently caused a stir among ’skeptics’. Everyone else can rest easy. Nothing to see here.)
And here’s how the Guardian has reported it:
Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world’s leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.
The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.
(Oh. I get it. It’s just a routine data-theft story, not a scandal. And a chance to remind us of the CRU’s integrity and respectability. And – see below – to get in a snarky, ‘let’s have a dig at the deniers’ quote from Greenpeace).
A spokesman for Greenpeace said: “If you looked through any organisation’s emails from the last 10 years you’d find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world’s leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke.”
Here’s the Washington Post:
Hackers broke into the electronic files of one of the world’s foremost climate research centers this week and posted an array of e-mails in which prominent scientists engaged in a blunt discussion of global warming research and disparaged climate-change skeptics.
The skeptics have seized upon e-mails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain as evidence that scientific data have been rigged to make it appear as if humans are causing global warming. The researchers, however, say the e-mails have been taken out of context and merely reflect an honest exchange of ideas.
(Ah, so what the story is really about is ’skeptics’ causing trouble. Note how as high as the second par the researchers are allowed by the reporter to get in their insta-rebuttal, lest we get the impression that the scandal in any way reflects badly on them).
Here is the BBC:
E-mails reportedly from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), including personal exchanges, appeared on the internet on Thursday.
A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission.
An investigation was underway and the police had been informed, he added.
(Ah yes, another routine data-theft story so dully reported – “the police had been informed, he added” – that you can’t even be bothered to reach the end to find out what information was stolen).
Meanwhile, the Climategate scandal (and I do apologise for calling it that, but that’s how the internet works: you need obvious, instantly memorable, event-specific search terms) continues to set the Blogosphere ablaze.
For links to all the latest updates on this, I recommend Marc Morano’s invaluable Climate Depot site.
And if you want to read those potentially incriminating emails in full, go to An Elegant Chaos org where they have all been posted in searchable form.
Continued: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017451/climategate-how-the-msm-reported-the-greatest-scandal-in-modern-science/
More info about the greatest scam of the 21st century: http://www.drudgereport.com/
Senator Inhofe to seek an investigation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zH6_hmEgfCs&feature=player_embedded
6.8SPC_DUMP
01-03-2010, 19:38
Farms-to-forest plan worries Vilsack (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/29/forests-vs-food-study-worries-agriculture-chief/)
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has ordered his staff to revise a computerized forecasting model that showed that climate legislation supported by President Obama would make planting trees more lucrative than producing food.
The latest Agriculture Department economic-impact study of the climate bill, which passed the House this summer, found that the legislation would profit farmers in the long term. But those profits would come mostly from higher crop prices as a result of the legislation's incentives to plant more forests and thus reduce the amount of land devoted to food-producing agriculture.
According to the economic model used by the department and the Environmental Protection Agency, the legislation would give landowners incentives to convert up to 59 million acres of farmland into forests over the next 40 years. The reason: Trees clean the air of heat-trapping gases better than farming does.
Mr. Vilsack, in a little-noticed statement issued with the report earlier this month, said the department's forecasts "have caused considerable concern" among farmers and ranchers.
"If landowners plant trees to the extent the model suggests, this would be disruptive to agriculture in some regions of the country," he said.
He said the Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model (FASOM), created by researchers at Texas A&M University, does not take into account other provisions in the House-passed bill, which would boost farmers' income while they continue to produce food. Those omissions, he said, cause the model to overestimate the potential for increased forest planting.
Mr. Vilsack said he has directed his chief economist to work with the EPA to "undertake a review of the assumptions in the FASOM model, to update the model and to develop options on how best to avoid unintended consequences for agriculture that might result from climate change legislation."
The legislation would give free emissions credits, known as offsets, to farmers and landowners who plant forests and adopt low-carbon farm and ranching practices. Farmers and ranchers could sell the credits to help major emitters of greenhouse gases comply with the legislation. That revenue would help the farmers deal with an expected rise in fuel and fertilizer costs.
But the economic forecast predicts that nearly 80 percent of the offsets would be earned through the planting of trees, mostly in the Midwest, the South and the Plains states.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and some farm-state Republican lawmakers have complained that the offsets program would push landowners to plant trees and terminate their leases with farmers.
The model projects that reduced farm production will cause food prices to rise by 4.5 percent by 2050 compared with a scenario in which no legislation is passed, the department found.
A department spokesman declined to comment about how quickly the review would take place or whether Mr. Vilsack would revise the department's economic-impact projections.
The Senate has not taken action on climate legislation, although the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a bill similar to the House's last month. That measure did not include agriculture provisions.
Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas Democrat and chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, has said she will hold hearings on climate provisions but has not indicated when those will take place.
The ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and his counterpart on the House Agriculture Committee, ranking Republican Rep. Frank D. Lucas of Oklahoma, wrote to Mr. Vilsack and EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson earlier this month to ask for new economic analyses of the House and Senate bills.
"EPA's analysis was often cited during debate in the House of Representatives and the study had a great impact on the final vote. If there was a flaw in the analysis, then it would be prudent to correct the model and perform a more current and complete analysis on both [bills]," they wrote.
In a statement, the EPA said: "EPA looks forward to working with USDA and the designer of this particular computer model to continue improving the analytical tools that all of [us] use to predict the ways that different climate policies would affect agriculture."
Allison Specht, an economist at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said other studies have largely confirmed the results of the EPA and Agriculture Department analysis.
"That's one of the realities of cap-and-trade legislation. The biggest bang for your buck for carbon credits is planting trees," she said.