Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

House Energy Committee Continues 'Cap and Trade' Hearings

The House Energy and Commerce Committee this morning began its third day of debate on a bill that would cap greenhouse gases, after a bleary-eyed session last night brought it little closer to resolution.

The committee adjourned just before midnight Tuesday, completing a day that began at 10 a.m. By the end, members were in shirtsleeves and speeches were often louder and less organized than 14 hours before.

The result: the committee voted on 15 amendments, and approved nine. It rejected several Republican 'off-ramp' proposals that would have allowed emissions limits to be voided or changed if China and India did not follow suit, or if gas prices or unemployment rates rise above a certain point.

The committee also rejected an amendment from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), which would have required widespread warnings to the public about the bill's cost. That provision proposed that warnings about added costs 'must be disclosed on each utility bill, fuel pump, manufactured product label, or food label.' But it still did not finish voting on all the amendments for the first of the bill's four titles. The hope for today, staffers said, was to finish with the first two titles.

The worst may be yet to come: Title III is likely the most controversial, since it describes the system of pollution 'credits' that would be allocated to some greenhouse-gas emitters.

The bill works by setting a national cap on emissions, requiring polluters to amass credits equal to their pollution. Those who reduce their pollution further could sell their credits -- which accounts for the system's informal name, "cap and trade."

Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has pledged to push the bill through committee by Memorial Day.

By Paul Volpe  |  May 20, 2009; 11:22 AM ET
Categories:  Hearing Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Today on the Hill
Next: House Energy Continues to Work Through 'Cap and Trade' Bill


Before we unilaterally increase the cost of energy for Americans with cap-and-trade, I believe it's imperative that the United States establishes a non-political, scientific commission to review all facts and evidence surrounding global warming. Currently, we are relying upon a political organization, the United Nations, for their assessment of global warming. This is not good for America. The stakes are too huge.

For the past 20 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now, after taking an objective look at the United Nations' Climate Change 2007 report, I'm not so sure. Whereas the report should have considered all possible global warming culprits then narrow the field, it instead removed the possibility of natural causes for global warming from consideration. It is little wonder that the report finds that CO2 is the driver of global warming when in their own words (p. 95), "The topics have been chosen for...assessing...risks of human-induced climate change." We need science not politics. For further discussion see

Posted by: Rmoen | May 20, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

No patriotic and informed American can support the global warming/cap and trade scam, more fraudulent than any Nigerian scam. Cap and trade is a huge tax on the poor and the middle class designed to give the powers of a dictator to Obama and to further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, etc.)

Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.

Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to "prevent global warming" remind us of primitive humans who believed that killing and sacrificing others would ensure them good weather. Human beings don't have the power to control climate!

More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. More than 700 international scientists dissent over man-made global warming claims. They are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

We pray that honest leaders – both Democrat and Republican - are able to save us from Obama's criminal global warming/cap-and-trade scam.

Posted by: AntonioSosa | May 20, 2009 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget

Posted by: atsegga | May 20, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Cap & trade is a decent solution to a serious problem that's gonna cost a lot more if we don't address it (cleaning up coal air pollution -- including mercury and radioactive isotopes, fly ash poisoning groundwater, mountain top removal destroying Appalachian streams and rivers, submerging coastlines, droughts, etc.). Not to mention that good jobs, here in the U.S., will be created if we do address it.

"The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" has a lot of other worthwhile stuff in it, too. Like measures to increase residential and commercial building energy efficiency which is much cheaper than increasing energy capacity. And doing so will create lots of domestic jobs. Lots.

And cap and trade won't cost all that much. Here's some credible estimates:

And here's some useful info on energy in general:

Posted by: JimWelke | May 20, 2009 6:04 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company