Cap and Trade vs. Environment
Is this another monster program in the making? After hearing so much about Cap and Trade on the news, I decided to take a look at the bill. I was again amazed at the items in this bill.
This bill contains pages upon pages of regulations for light bulbs. Energy efficiency is great, but do we really need another piece of legislature to dictate what type of light bulbs can be sold, and another government agency to make sure the regulations are followed. Has the government even attempted to work with the manufacturing companies making these light bulbs to address energy efficient bulbs without legislation? How about providing consumer information so the customer can make energy efficient choices? Anyone concerned about the environment would welcome accurate information on the benefits of choosing an energy efficient bulb. Government legislation isn’t necessary. I was wondering why so many pages were dedicated just to light bulbs. I also found it interesting that California and Nevada have exemptions from some of these regulations. I guess energy efficiency isn’t necessary in those states.
The bill also creates a government owned, tax exempt, corporation – the Clean Energy Deployment Administration – wholly owned by the government. The Administrator of this new corporation would be appointed by the President, and board members would include various secretaries of the government and 4 additional members appointed by the President. Where in the constitution does it allow the government to create a government owned corporation? I am baffled by the number of businesses the government wants to own and that Congress would actually approve these actions. Does anyone see a problem here? Why isn’t someone doing an investigation?
The bill actually admits it will put a great number of people out of work. Because of this, the taxpayers will get the privilege of paying a large percentage of their salaries for the next three years. In a time of high unemployment, why would you pass a bill that guarantees an increase in the number of unemployed people? You can’t collect taxes to pay for any government programs if people aren’t working – they have no income to tax! Does anyone understand economics!
Estimates are that this bill would increase the cost of energy to each household by $175 a month, quite a substantial amount for most Americans. That is only the direct cost. Everything will go up in price because as businesses see their operating costs rise, they will pass those expenses on to the consumers in the form of higher prices. So in a recession, why would you pass legislation to further deepen a recession? But that seems to be the theme of this administration.
If the government is truly concerned about the environment and greenhouse gas emissions then they would be encouraging everyone to do their part without concern of the potential loss of income to the electric companies or the loss of tax by the government. This ploy of environmental concern is just another means to increase profits to utility companies and more tax money for the government to waste.
People could do so much more. There are alternative means of producing energy for homes – like solar power or geothermal systems. Most people have not incorporated these into their homes because the cost is too high. Whenever there is an incentive program offered, the companies selling the products (liked solar) increase their prices so the consumer doesn’t see the savings; instead these companies reap the benefits. Those tactics should be stopped and instead efforts should be made so homes can incorporate alternative energy sources. If the environment is the concern, then the reduction of use from power companies should not be a negative deciding factor. Homeowner’s associations should not be able to restrict energy saving devises like solar power either.
A gentleman in Australia invented a product that could be put on the electrical system of a home and actually double the output to the home. What a concept! He envisioned putting these units into homes to reduce the amount of electricity required to operate that home; and the cost was supposed to be affordable. However, the patent was sold to China. Big business took over and attempted to use the technology to get twice the output from the electrical companies. The plan failed and the technology is lost. Greed has again destroyed a great idea. The environment wasn’t the concern, just the ability of big business being able to make the buck.
That is much of the problem. As new ideas are developed, they are often to the benefit of the consumer with the decreased dependency on big power business. Big business cannot have this decrease in demand because it would decrease their profits, so they squash any of these ideas. People could make a huge positive impact on the environment, but big business wants control.
So, if the environment is the concern, instead of taxing the people yet again, create ways to make alternative power affordable for people to install. The people would save on their electric bills and the electric companies would be more environmentally friendly because they wouldn’t have to produce all that extra power – isn’t that what the whole light bulb issue is? If the concern is truly environmental then stop trying to make the big bucks over it! Otherwise the alternative name “cap and tax” is more appropriate.
