Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Cap And Trade Bill 2009 HR 2454 Passed, So What Does That Mean?
Share:
by Amy Judd | June 27, 2009 at 10:28 am
27033 views | 33 Recommendations | 70 comments
The Cap and Trade Bill 2009 was passed in the U.S Senate on Friday, but what does that mean for the average American family? This 'green energy revolution climate bill' has already created a lot of debate from both the Republicans and the Democrats, and it will certainly affect America's economic condition.
It was a close vote to get the bill passed even: 219 voted for the bill and 211 voted against it, while only three people abstained from voting.
What is the cap and trade bill?
It aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and create some 'green' jobs, by putting a limit on the amout of pollution large industrial industries can output, and then if they go above that, they have to buy pollution permits.
If some companies don't need all that they are allocated, they can sell their permits to companies that do.
The Cap and Trade is a policy that protects human heath conditions through the prevention of large amounts of emission from different sources that pollute the environment. These sources have to gather emission allowances and had to comply to a strategy that includes meeting a required reduction in pollution, checking pollution control besides others.
Videos
There will be penalities for going above your allocated emission allowance, and the program will monitor things like acid rain, clean air rules, and emissions released into the atmosphere.
Now that the bill has passed, the biggest challenge will come this September when the Senate takes up legislation for the bill.
Much opposition to the bill in the Senate comes from the farm and coal state legislators who fear that such severe restrictions will damage the local economies of many towns and will raise the cost of things like electricity for the average American family.
Some critics say that if they have to import wind and solar electricity from other states, it will become too expensive to light their homes. This feeling is especially strong in the Southeast states.
Dissenting voices will only gain prominence in the Senate, where each state has equal representation.
“The Senate magnifies the significance of rural constituencies,” says Scott Segal of Bracewell and Giuliani, a Washington, D.C., law firm specializing in energy issues.
Last week, the Congressional Budget Office looked at the cost of such a bill in the year 2020 for average families. According to their calculations, based on the current bill that passed on Friday, the net annual economy-wide cost by the year 2020 would be $22 billion.
Companies that would have to adjust and purchase carbon allowances for example, will not absorb that cost themselves, the cost would be passed on to the consumer, and by 2020, according to the budget office, that cost would be about $175 per American household. That number is just the cost however, and does not take in to account the potential cost benefits that would come from reducing carbon emissions. The number equals about 0.2 percent of a family's after-tax income, on average.
Some households would benefit more though, as they might receive energy rebates and tax credits. Some of the poorest households would be most likely to see a rebate of about $40 a year, but the richer households would suffer more and would have to pay more.
See how the Congressional Budget Office broke it down.
Republican critics however, say that the $175 figure is much too low, and that it will actually cost Americans much more. If you live in a state where most of the energy supply comes from coal for example, it will most likely cost you more each year to live.
Farmers are also concerned that it will cost them more, because their business relies on machines like tractors, and animals such as cows, both of which are heavy emissions producers.
Some states stand to benefit from the bill and others to lose from it.
However, the bill still has to go through the Senate and it appears it has some tough competition there.
Two tightly interconnected issues could stop the bill in its tracks in the Senate. The first is mathematical: Currently, Democrats hold 59 seats in the upper house, a solid majority but not enough to sidestep a Republican filibuster that would kill hopes for the bill's passage (60 votes are needed to invoke cloture, which would override a filibuster attempt.)
The second is that the introduction of both a climate and energy bill may be too much at one time, rather than trying to pass two separate bills. Add on top of that the current economic climate, and supporters worry that there are already too many strikes against the bill.
A list of key fence-sitting Democratic senators could include Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mark Warner of Virginia. Republicans who in the past have voiced support for energy or climate legislation include George Voinovich of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, if concessions are made to promote nuclear power.
It remains to be seen what will happen however, but for now the bill is on the way to the Senate, and that will be decided in September.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Crowd Power
Amy Judd
Vancouver, Canada
Related Stories
Recommendations (33)
Anonymous users (7)
Jennings David L
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Roy C
Vancouver, Washington, United States
Paschen
Narita, Chiba, Japan
albertacowpoke
Canada
Pythiian1
New York, New York, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (70)
at 05:12 on June 28th, 2009
When does HR2454 Cap and Trade go to the US Senate to be voted on? Date?
at 07:56 on June 28th, 2009
Cap and Trade appears to be a breath of fresh air for a greener America. America is finally moving in a positive direction for the future.
at 06:27 on June 30th, 2009
you are a moron if you actually believe that!
at 10:21 on July 1st, 2009
Mr Jennings, Do you have any idea how many Americans will lose their jobs if this bill is passed? What kind of future will they have?
at 23:16 on July 3rd, 2009
if you think this will change an effect of the universe you are a complete idiot!!!!!!!!
at 23:39 on July 3rd, 2009
If you think the USA making a small expencive change at our expence in bad times will justify all the other countries not to mention the natural effects of the entire universe you would have to be one stupid son of a bitch or working for all goer take some of your money and see if you can buy a CLUE !!
at 21:52 on July 20th, 2009
David:
Glad to know your such a strong supporter of this bill. Would you mind paying my $ 3,478.00 estimated cost per citzen share of this ridiculous bill. By the way the earth hasn't really heated up since it was formed. Do the research....Al Gore has you hood winked....
Sad in South Texas
at 16:23 on July 25th, 2009
How do you figure? We don't all have the luxury of having money and our jobs involve things that this bill will affect, you want to make a real change ,VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!
at 06:13 on July 27th, 2009
All hail king Barack! He like all other kings, steel from their people to make themseleve rich and powerful. We are not progressing to a better future, we are digressing to the mid-evil times.
Wake up America - you are blindly following the corrupt leaders of this country who only care about bettering themselves at your expense. They don't care about you - the people!!! You are surrendeirng your freedoms, your right to earn a fair living and keep what you earn and your rights as a citizen of this great country. What would our founding fathers say?!
at 06:53 on August 26th, 2009
Did you ever stop and think of the effect this will have, not only on small coal mines (a lot of jobs), but on ALL businesses. Companies will either comply and have to raise theirs costs which will be passed along to all of us, or they will go under. Products produced in this country will cost more, not just electricity . . . nearly EVERYTHING requires electricity to be produced! The end result will be MORE JOBS LOST because products will be imported, CHEAPER, from China, India, etc. where they don't have to comply with our rules. They in turn will be cranking up thier production of emissions to keep up with our demands! Come on now people . . . T H I N K about it!!
at 11:25 on June 28th, 2009
You people are absolutely crazy. While you are praising him on a greener America. The middle class is going to GREATLY suffer. There will be no middle america, only poor and rich. Whose in for Succession of Texas!
at 10:09 on June 29th, 2009
I am in for a succession! Everyone is blindly being led to the slaughter house of socialism, while dictator Obama playes his flute!
at 23:32 on July 29th, 2009
My husband and I would gladly move to Texas if you would actually succeed from the US. Many people from the US are actually moving to Mexico for a more affordable life.We are sick and tired of Obama's fear tactics and free spending of all our hard earned money. The middle class are suffering now;what will happen to us when all his new programs go in to effect? His buddies on capital hill,like "Nancy"continue to strong arm any disapproving members. There is no global warming--read the latest findings 'its hog wash. Count me in on Texas!!!
at 10:25 on August 12th, 2009
As a proud, middle class resident of Texas, I say let the succession begin! And all those Obama supporters can go down together. They are the ones that put the Socialist in office, let them live with the repercussions of their actions!
God Bless Texas as we may soon be the ONLY free country left in this world!
at 11:10 on August 24th, 2009
I'm 100% for Texas getting out from under the poor 'leadership?" (and I use that term loosely) of Obama. I have no trust or faith in him (and just so everyone knows...I DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM) - I could tell during the election 'rig-a-ma-roll" that he was blowing hot air and is nothing more than a well dressed, well spoken, charming, intelligent 'cult' leader! Apparently there are a lot of people out there that can't think for themselves and can't see through disguises (bulls***) - or he never would have been elected in the first place. They wanted change - well..........welcome to ObamaWorld.........lets go Texas!!!
at 14:33 on June 28th, 2009
The problem is that everyone hears the words "clean air bill" and they stand up and cheer, but they don't understand what it really involves. GREENPEACE was AGAINST this bill...because it's rreeeaallly expensive (guess who picks up that bill), and undermines itself with offsets (read: ineffective).
I wish more people would take an interest in what is actually going on.
at 11:18 on June 29th, 2009
If Greenpeace is against it, then it might just have some workable provisions in it.Sorry I consider greenpeace to be eco terrorist like and am not inclined to advocate any proposal or lack thereof as being consequencial.I do believe that we need to go to alternative energy [in all forms]and pronto.My stance is from national security not global warming.This bill is wrong wrong wrong.It goes way too far in the wrong direction and not far enough in the right direction.How about incentives for energy companies to go green.Most companies want to do this anyway.Its just plain silly to think that a coal oil company wouldnt want to expand their business.Remove the barriers add some incentives I ll bet you in ten years or less [if this type of plan were created and allowed to operate]that we might just be one of the most green nations on earth.If not number one.More important we would no longer be dependant on our enemies.What a radical concept.This would be the change we could live with.
at 18:36 on June 28th, 2009
what they fail to mention is the $175. will be per week. I have a vested interest to see that this bill goes down in flames. W/o baseline power supplied by coal / nuclear / cogen / hydro / pulp we will be sitting in the dark waiting for the wind to blow and paying almost 1500 a month just to turn our lights on at night.
Obamas administration has said some really great things done some really stupid things and when the going gets tough has blamed previous administrations (Bush was not good but he accepted some blame for things).
at 20:55 on June 28th, 2009
If this is only going to cost $175/year, i'd be all for it; however, as all government run entities, I don't believe that figure to be true. If the sponsors/supporters of the bill are so sure that will only cost $175 / year, let them amend the bill to provide tax credits to every household if/when that amount is exceeded. It would have to be another agency (hopefully a non-partisan one, similar to the CBO) to set that annual amount if the $175 is exceeded. I can imagine what that would do the the Gov's ability to increase its tax revenue. This type of 'adjustment' would let the current administration 'put its money where its mouth is' (instead of increasing taxes).
at 07:34 on June 29th, 2009
This is absolute tyranny! IT WAS NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO BE READ BEFORE IT WAS VOTED ON!!! For God's sake, people! WAKE UP!
“Finally, it is a sad day for the Congress and the American people that the Speaker chose to rush this bill through the Congress without an open debate and amendment process. Members of Congress asked that 224 amendments be allowed to be considered to this bill. Unfortunately, the Speaker allowed only one amendment to be offered. Among the amendments denied were one to: (1) suspend the bill if gas exceeds $5 per gallon; (2) suspend the bill if electricity prices increase more than 10%; and (3) suspend the bill if unemployment exceeds 15%. These and many more amendments were reasonable and worthy of consideration. They should have been allowed as they are in the best interest of the American people. " http://posey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=134786
at 08:58 on June 29th, 2009
at 17:13 on June 29th, 2009
Great point!
at 11:48 on June 29th, 2009
The 300 page amendment deliever a 0300 hours on Friday contains a provision that the Fed will have to inspect your home if you are selling it to insure it is enviromentally compliant. Including the appliances. If it isn't....no sale. The Gubmnet is getting so far up our collective asses, there is going to be some kind of revolt to stop it. Nazi Germany was very similar. Do things so fast, the people don't have time to realize what's going on. Very thing is an emergency that needs to be addressed immeidately.
It might be too late but remember this in 2010
at 18:57 on June 29th, 2009
The SENATE did not vote on the cap and trade bill. The title of the story says that the senate passed this bill. This is NOT true. The house voted on the bill, not the senate!!!
at 19:07 on June 29th, 2009
WOW! Who do you think will gain from this bill. Not our hard working american workers in industries, jobs that are already going overseas and not our farmers. Hey, we can replace our dairy farms with windmill farms. No more milk for our babies! We will all be picking up the tab with higher energy bills. The ones who will benefit from this bill are in public office, such as Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi and others who have investments in green energy companies. More for the rich and less for us middle income Americans. Call your representatives and say no to this bill.
at 09:10 on July 2nd, 2009
Kind of like our favorite Republicans that benefited from the war due to their ties with Halliburton. Except no one will be killed making wind farms...
at 16:50 on July 20th, 2009
what the hell are you talking about? what the heck does that have to do with the OBAMA whitehouse stealing all our damn money . this BILL is not going to clean up a damn thing...... ozone yea RIGHT
at 19:35 on July 22nd, 2009
The ones who will benefit from this bill are: Goldman Sachs, Al Gore due to his recent investment in a newly created commodities trading company, the government workers that are hired to administer this boondoggle, and the newly elected officials who use this legislation as a reason why one shouldn't vote for the incumbent.
at 14:34 on June 30th, 2009
Let's look at like this. If the "Government" spends money, then it's out of MY pocket! If you TAX "businesses" then it's going to cost ME! If this Cap and Trade TAXES the oil companies, then just think about what we get from OIL> asphalt, tar, roofing materials, plastics (tv, cars, trucks, planes, computers, cell phones, furniture, lights, microwaves, ink pens, lipstick, cosmetics, paints, cleaning supplies, lawnmowers, tires, oil, gas, diesel for our vehicles, and much more) So we're not being taxed? We need food, from farmers, who use tractors, which burn oil, which will cost us more, and iti has to be shipped by trucks which burns fuel, and we travel by car to buy the more expensive groceries. Tax? Not a TAX bill, it a death bill for our freedom, our voice, our liberties, and our pursute of our happiness! God Help us ALL
at 06:03 on July 28th, 2009
Brent from SC,
You are absolutly correct. The main tax is going to be on oil. 99.99% of daily ues products have *petrolium* in them. Then power companies are going to be taxed for (producing power). And low and behold, the average Joe/Jane is going to eat those taxes in reducing {relaxation time/activities}. No more taking the family on a drive to the park (gas to expensive for the 35+ mpg Altima hybrid). No more taking the family vacation to disney land/world (airline tickets for 4/5 cost 4 or 5 grand, that needs to be saved to stock up on food due to shortage). No more family trip to the lake/ocean (boat/jet skies aren't hybrids yet, "jet skies aren't safe anyways"). No more family ski trip to 'Big Bear, Ca'/ 'Vail, Co' (airline tickets/"Expedition to likely to tip over due to high center of gravitey"). Don't get me wrong on the Altima hybrid, I'd own one for the MPG'S alone.