[Vision2020] July 23, 2010, Wall Street Journal: "Senate Halts Effort to Cap CO2 Emissions"

[Dave]

Ah, come on Ted, this is the Republican party of NO.  They want NO 
future for our kids because, well, I guess, 'it's bad for business".  
You expected anything else?

Dave


On 07/23/2010 03:42 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
> "The Age of Stupid" unfolds, as fossil fuels continue to rule our 
> economy, government and way of life... http://www.ageofstupid.net/
> -----------------
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383373600358634.html
> # JULY 23, 2010
>
>
>   Senate Halts Effort to Cap CO2 Emissions
>
>
>     Democrats Forgo Centerpiece of President Obama's Energy Plan, as
>     Cap-and-Trade Fails to Lure Broad Support in Congress
>
>
>       By STEPHEN POWER
>       <http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=STEPHEN+POWER&bylinesearch=true>
>
>
> Senate Democratic leaders Thursday shelved their effort to cap 
> greenhouse-gas emissions as part of a broad energy bill, putting aside 
> indefinitely a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's ambitious 
> effort to transform the way Americans produce and consume energy.
>
> The proposal would have allowed utilities to trade permits to pollute 
> as they worked to shift away from coal—a concept commonly called "cap 
> and trade."
>
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday that neither he nor 
> the White House had managed to line up 60 senators to support even a 
> limited proposal seeking to cap carbon-dioxide emissions from electric 
> power companies.
>
> Mr. Reid refused to declare the idea dead. But Thursday's decision 
> called into question when or whether any legislated cap on 
> greenhouse-gas emissions would reach Mr. Obama's desk.
>
> Now, businesses, such as wind-turbine makers, that had bet on a 
> greenhouse-gas provision to make alternatives to coal and oil more 
> cost-competitive must recalculate how long it might take for that to 
> happen.
>
> But industries that opposed congressional action to limit 
> greenhouse-gas emissions still have to reckon with uncertainty over 
> how far the administration may push an effort to do the same thing via 
> the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency.
>
> Advocates of the cap-and-trade approach say that making it more 
> expensive to burn coal or oil would encourage investments in new 
> technology that reduces greenhouse-gas emissions and energy 
> consumption, resulting in lower energy costs overall and avoiding the 
> potential long-term toll of climate disruptions on the economy. Some 
> also argue putting a price on carbon can ahelp reduce reliance on 
> foreign oil. Opponents of such legislation dispute this.
>
> Opponents say compelling utilities to pay for emitting carbon dioxide 
> would force them to pass along those costs to consumers in the form of 
> higher prices. Republicans branded a House bill that proposed an 
> economy-wide system for capping carbon dioxide emissions a 
> "job-killing energy tax."
>
> Senate Republicans closed ranks in opposition to even limited use of 
> such mechanisms as the clock ticks down to the November elections.
>
> But a limited cap-and-trade proposal backed by Mr. Reid and the White 
> House also failed to win over a cadre of conservative Democrats from 
> industrial and coal states, who opposed the idea of imposing caps and 
> higher costs on the use of coal and other fossil fuels.
>
> Some also worried that the measure would put U.S. manufacturers at a 
> disadvantage to rivals in China, now the No. 1 consumer of energy 
> according to the International Energy Agency.
>
> China's role in the U.S. debate over climate change cuts both ways. 
> Opponents of capping emissions say enacting such policies would put 
> the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to China, which has refused to 
> cap its emissions. Advocates of capping emissions say that unless the 
> U.S. puts a price on carbon, it will lose out to China in the race to 
> develop the energy technologies —and jobs—of the 21st century.
>
> Mr. Reid said Democrats will push for more limited energy legislation, 
> aimed at holding BP PLC accountable for the oil spill, providing 
> incentives to the production and purchase of natural-gas vehicles and 
> funding land and water conservation.
>
> The Senate's inaction leaves Mr. Obama's Environmental Protection 
> Agency administrator, Lisa Jackson, in charge of setting federal 
> limits on greenhouse gases. Ms. Jackson has already adopted rules 
> limiting emissions from cars and requiring state regulators to account 
> for such emissions when they issue air-quality permits to large 
> refineries and manufacturing facilities.
>
> The agency's authority to do so is under assault. Business groups have 
> sued, challenging the legality of EPA proposals to regulate 
> greenhouse-gas emissions. And a group of Democrats is pushing 
> legislation to bar the agency for two years from regulating emissions 
> from stationary sources.
>
> Utilities now will be forced to make long-term decisions without 
> knowing how carbon dioxide will be treated, said Mike Morris, chief 
> executive of American Electric Power, Columbus, Ohio.
>
> He said that for the next few years, utilities likely would build 
> gas-fired power plants, which have about half the carbon emissions of 
> plants burning coal. But the cost of nuclear energy will be relatively 
> more costly without a penalty imposed on fossil-fuel use.
>
> Uncertainty over the future price of carbon and what sorts of 
> technology the EPA will require already is having a "chilling effect" 
> on investment in the steel industry, said Thomas Gibson, a former EPA 
> official who now heads the American Iron and Steel Institute.
>
> But other business could be chilled if Washington abandons entirely 
> the idea of raising the price of consuming fossil fuels. Companies 
> trying to develop and sell solar and wind energy technology, 
> energy-conservation systems or electric vehicles have hoped that caps 
> on greenhouse gas emissions would jump-start demand.
>
> These companies will now focus on certain states that have their own 
> clean-energy mandates, such as California, Colorado and New Jersey, 
> said Angiolo Laviziano, chief executive officer of REC Solar Inc., a 
> provider of solar systems in San Luis Obispo, Calif.
>
> Still, the solar industry is growing at the rate of about 40% a year 
> in terms of electrical power installed and is likely to continue to 
> grow, said Ron Kenedi, vice president of Sharp Corp.'s Sharp Solar 
> Energy Solutions Group in Huntington Beach, Calif.
>
> Mr. Reid's decision to pull cap-and-trade from the energy bill could 
> reverberate on Wall Street, where banks and brokerage firms had been 
> anticipating climate legislation that would lead to widespread trading 
> of carbon "credits."
>
> There is already a global carbon-trading market, with the majority of 
> the trading taking place in the regulated European markets. It 
> amounted to $127 billion last year.
>
> It isn't clear how many of the provisions Mr. Reid is promising to 
> include in the narrower energy bill will survive a Senate floor 
> debate. Republicans have objected to Democrats' proposals to eliminate 
> the cap on oil companies' liability for damages related to spills, 
> currently $75 million, saying the proposals, as written, would make 
> offshore drilling unaffordable for all but the largest oil companies 
> and foreign-owned nationalized oil giants. Some business groups are 
> also rallying to defeat the provisions related to natural gas.
>
> ------------------------------------------
>
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
> =======================================================
>   List services made available by First Step Internet,
>   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                 http://www.fsr.net
>            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-- 
Windows, OSX, or Linux is the same choice as:
McDonald's, Burger King, or a (real) Co-Op.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100723/629d7bd5/attachment-0001.html