America's Climate Security Act of 2007
A bill to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a program to decrease emissions of greenhouse gases, and for other purposes.
This is Congress' leading proposal to address climate change and global warming. It seeks to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by about 65 percent below present levels by 2050 through imposing limits on the emissions that manufacturers and utilities can release. It would also establish a carbon-trade market to encourage polluters to clean up their operation in the name of profit. It will be taken up by the Senate in June. The vote and debate is expected to be extremely contentious.
America's Climate Security Act of 2007 - Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish: (1) a greenhouse gas (GHG) registry; and (2) a GHG emission allowance transfer system for covered facilities, including specified more.....
Return cap-and-trade proceeds to people
By U.S. SEN. BOB CORKERGlobal warming has become a buzzword, inciting passionate responses from all ends of the political and environmental spectrums.
The focus has largely been on the science behind climate change, and as debate over this issue continues, I worry many will be caught up in the aura surrounding global warming and pay little attention to the actual policy that will impact Americans, driving up gas prices and electricity bills.
My interest isn't to debate the science. Since no one can quantify how much of global warming is caused by natural cycles vs. man-made greenhouse emissions, I have focused on digging into the policy the Senate could debate as early as June and am working to ensure any emerging policy will be sound and enable us to increase our energy and economic security while being good environmental stewards.
There are many complexities in legislation of this magnitude, so I have visited Europe with Energy Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-N,M., to meet carbon traders, gone to Greenland with Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to view the effects of climate change, and spent countless hours with Tennessee-based industry, conservation groups and experts discussing climate change legislation.
A market-based approach
The likely vehicle for this debate is America's Climate Security Act sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va., which implements a "cap-and-trade" program. This program would cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, refineries and factories using a market-based system intended to make reductions as cost-effective as possible. In short, the federal government would issue credits, allowing industries to emit a limited amount of greenhouse emissions yearly. Some of these credits would be freely allocated to facilities that must reduce emissions, while others would be sold to the highest bidder through an auction.
Additional credits would be freely allocated to entities, such as states, that don't have to reduce emissions but are able to sell those credits and use that money to assist consumers through rebates or public programs. Each credit would be an asset, and therefore giving away those credits not sold through an auction would cause a real transference of wealth.
One of my major concerns with the bill is that it's not simply a cap-and-trade program; it's a massive spending bill. In essence, it taxes energy producers and manufacturers by putting a price on emissions and creating a market for credits — resulting in higher prices for consumers.
The bill then takes revenue generated from selling these credits, bypasses the annual appropriations process, and automatically spends those trillions of dollars on new and existing government programs. I think it makes more sense to return the money directly to citizens affected by the costs associated with implementing this program.
It's possible I may support cap-and-trade legislation, and I want to have a constructive debate. However, I think it's inappropriate for me to support legislation that increases costs to consumers then automatically spends trillions of dollars on various programs that could instead be returned to the American people.
0 comments:
Post a Comment