KEEP FREE REPUBLIC ALIVE!!!
PLEASE MAKE YOUR CONTRIBUTION TODAY!!!!
Posted on 02/22/2015 2:37:55 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, the odds of passing a climate change bill this year are virtually non-existent. But Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Maryland, plans to reintroduce legislation to cap carbon emissions this week, anyway, due in part to the impact it could have on the 2016 election.
"Our goal is to keep attention focused on this issue as we head into this congressional session, and also into the presidential election in 2016," Van Hollen told CNN, explaining the bill serves as a vehicle for discussion.
Van Hollen's objective is to force Republicans to address the issue, and he believes they're slowly coming to the negotiating table. Think Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, and her crusade against income inequality to push Hillary Clinton toward embracing a populist mission as she forms an economic platform for her likely presidential bid.
"Republicans understand that the costs of inaction are huge," Van Hollen said, adding that at least privately, some GOP lawmakers are beginning to acknowledge to him their interest in taking up the issue.
There was GOP movement in this direction back in 2009, the last time a major climate change bill was up for a vote. Eight House Republicans voted in favor of the legislation, which included so-called cap-and-trade -- inspiring primary challenges from the right flank.
Heading into the 2012 presidential election four Republicans eyeing presidential bids who had once supported cap-and-trade turned against it, including Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee.
Van Hollen argues his newer approach is more palatable to the GOP because it is market-based and returns the funds collected from the sale of permits directly to American taxpayers.
The thrust of the bill "caps carbon pollution and reduces CO2 emissions gradually but steadily, auctions carbon pollution permits to the first sellers of oil, coal and natural gas into the U.S. market, and returns 100% of the auction proceeds electronically each quarter to every American with a valid Social Security number," he said.
The direct benefit to American citizens is a newer concept, but the approach doesn't change the cost to industries throughout the Rust Belt and coal country. Van Hollen conceded that challenge, but vowed to work with those interested parties. He pointed out that his legislation includes a protection for American industries by rebating costs for exports while imposing tariffs on foreign imports.
He also believes there's renewed public interest in tackling climate change thanks to increasing awareness of the problem in the wake of a series of extreme weather events. Add to that droughts and forest fires disrupting communities across the country, and the recent statistic that 2014 was the warmest year on record.
To that end, Van Hollen argues the public is ahead of Republicans. A CNN/ORC poll conducted in late December of last year found half of respondents believe global warming is a reality attributed to pollutants like cars and industrial facilities. But when asked if global warming would pose a serious threat in their lifetimes, 57% said no.
Still, as polling moves gradually in favor of addressing climate change, Van Hollen says Republican presidential candidates risk hurting their chances in 2016 if they don't agree to do something. He realizes the crop of Republican presidential hopefuls are in a tough position because they could risk damage in a primary by speaking out, but that they'll have to address the issue in a general election.
Just one more carrot Van Hollen is pitching to Republicans: To those who are dismissive of 1,000-page tomes the Marylander is dropping a bill just 30 pages.
The real challenge, of course, stems from getting Republican leadership to bring the legislation to the House floor for a vote. And already Republicans are skeptical.
Jeff Holmstead, an assistant administrator at the EPA during George W. Bush's presidency, predicted the only kind of climate change discussion that will occur in the House will center on what Republicans propose to roll back from President Barack Obama's announcement last June that he would broadly interpret the Clean Air Act of 1970 to mandate lower emissions.
It is FREEZING throughout America this week.
What a goof.
“He also believes there’s renewed public interest in tackling climate change thanks to increasing awareness of the problem in the wake of a series of extreme weather events.”
But..but..they keep telling us that “weather” is NOT “climate.” Unless, of course, they think it supports the hoax.
Whether it’s 1000 pages or 30 it’s still an alchemy bill, turning carbon into gold for redistribution.
Democrats and the MSM are dumb.
Climate change wasn’t even in the top ten issues Americans wanted addressed in the 2014 midterm election.
But Democrats’ plan for reversing their minority status is to ban fossil fuels, destroy the coal industry and put working class Americans out of work.
These are the same folks who can’t bring themselves to vote for the Keystone XL bill that would put Americans to work.
Let them bring up their bill for a vote.
These a-holes aren’t concerned with climate change one iota. They want to sell and trade carbon credits on the market (sort of). We alreafy know how this will end. Open your wallets and hand over some more. Sorry but mine is bone dry from the thieves in Obamaland...
“With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, the odds of passing a climate change bill this year are virtually non-existent.”
— — —
Glad to hear that!
Dumb is generous. Moron closer but still does not quite capture the truth of the matter.
“Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don’t rule out malice”
Heinlein’s Razor
How terrifying is it that this could have passed without any issue in 2009?
But of course. Being moronic and evil are not mutually exclusive.
“Just one more carrot Van Hollen is pitching to Republicans: To those who are dismissive of 1,000-page tomes the Marylander is dropping a bill just 30 pages. “
heck they could drop it to a single sentence
“We want and demand your money - all of it”. (just like the scene in the Vacation movie where the fat gas station redneck demands all of Chevy’s money)
Hurry up and pass the darn bill! I’m freezing my a___ off!
As I recall the House passed this cap and trade bill in 2009, but it never passed the Senate.
I never understand the reasoning with cap and trade. If carbon pollution is really fouling the environment, then why don’t liberals want to ban it entirely? Cap and trade allows these alleged pollutants to still be produced. It just levies a tax or fee on the output of same.
How is it that liberals are OK with a pollutant being produced as long as someone pays for the right to produce said pollutant??
The alleged pollutant is not any less dangerous just because someone paid their cap and trade tax. What the heck am I missing???
“The thrust of the bill “caps carbon pollution and reduces CO2 emissions gradually but steadily, auctions carbon pollution permits to the first sellers of oil, coal and natural gas into the U.S. market, and returns 100% of the auction proceeds electronically each quarter to every American with a valid Social Security number,” he said.”
In other words bribe every american with their own money to get their support of this bill.
And how will they differentiate those americans with the valid ss numbers from the ones with the invalid ones?
Oh, look. There’s Jose. He’s got a dozen valid social security numbers and he isnt even a citizen.
All well and good in theory. Global warming is normally a tool for rent seekers to get taxpayer subsidies for luxury electric cars (for example). Global warming is also a tool to send reparations payments to third world thugs who ironically spend the money on private jets. So on its face, Van Hollen's proposal is better than those things that we already do.
The problem is that the political process will result in 400 pages of special favors and politicized tariffs which we will have to pass to see what is in it. Also the warming is currently beneficial (more than detrimental) and there needs to be some recognition that CO2 reduction is a long term goal for a century from now using better electricity generation and other energy solutions yet to be invented. Political actions will only stifle those, although a neutral tax is, in theory, the least political proposal.
CO2 is so scary, they still won't push for nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy, the only reliable source of energy to reduce current CO2 emissions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.