It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama Budget Calls For Auctioning All CO2 Permits

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:34 AM
Despite Congress' claims that most permits would be given away, Obama and Energy Sec. Chu intend to sell all of them, generating over $600 billion in revenue and raising prices for consumers!

President Obama’s$3.5 trillion budget retains his plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by selling 100 % of emission permits.

That is at odds with Congress, pushing for most of those “credits” to be given away to ease the transition to a low-carbon economy.

Opponents fear that charging companies would put unnecessary pressure on a struggling economy.

Selling the permits is projected to bring in $646 billion, and Obama budget director Peter Orszag said that would not change when details about his budget are released next week.

What does this mean for consumers?

Under the Obama plan, carbon dioxide emissions would be capped. Companies that emit more than the limit would have to buy emissions credits.

Total revenue from auctioning emissions could amount to some $1.2 trillion over 10 years, the CBO's David Elmendorf said. That rise in costs for emitting companies will show up in higher prices.

"The price increase will have to occur," Elmendorf said. "You can move around where it happens, but you can't get away from it altogether."

"Cap and Trade a ‘Declaration of War’"

Even if Congress fails to enact cap-and-trade legislation, Obama and Chu, and Carol Browner's EPA intend to "regulate" the program into existence as soon as possible.

Environmental Change by Regulation:

What do other countries experiences with "carbon trading" show?

Prices for carbon permits under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme fell to a low of 8 euros in February, from nearly 31 euros last July.

A separate factor affecting world “carbon –credit” prices is the value of passive carbon mitigation, such as re-forestation and cessation of clear-cutting tropical forests.

Greenpeace and other groups have opposed credit for such activity, despite clearly proven benefits. Nevertheless, Indonesia has become the first nation in the world to enact rules permitting the issuance of credit for these CO2 mitigating actions.

The world's first rules for generating tradeable carbon credits from protecting forests were a good start but Indonesia needed to clear up doubts over the government's share of the revenues, analysts and industry said Friday.

Indonesia's forestry minister signed the rules last Friday, making Indonesia the first nation to formally enact regulations governing a U.N.-backed scheme called reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).

The scheme aims to generate billions of dollars in carbon credit revenue for developing nations in return for long-term protection of forests or rehabilitation of forest land.

Forests soak up vast amounts of carbon dioxide and reversing the rate of deforestation is seen as crucial to braking the pace of climate change.

About 20 percent of mankind's greenhouse gas emissions come from clearing and burning forests and Indonesia has been a large contributor of that pollution through logging and clearing for palm oil plantations.

Of course, even in Southeast Asia, the government wants to divert proceeds away from the programs and into its own pockets.

Although passive "green" alternatives have been widely studied, and do not add to consumers' economic burden, the MSM and AGW advocates dismiss them and look for more sources of "revenue generation" and grant-supported modeling of what might happen under attention grabbing worst case scenarios.

"Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace"

"Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet"

The obvious conclusion from these developments in all of these programs is clear: the primary focus is the generation of revenue to government and environmental groups like Greenpeace, instead of carbon mitigation and remediation!


posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:49 AM
So right you are.This cap and trade B.S. has more to do with capital gains and less to do with curtailing emissions. I am dismayed by some of the actions of this administration. Giving billions upon billions of dollars to insurance companies and banks.Then turn around and cap social security cost of living raises for the next two years.Zero increase in social security!!
However with energy companies having to purchase C.C. to function legally,there is little doubt that costs will rise dramaticaly.

That put everyone at a disadvantage,especially those on fixed income.
C.C. should stand for cash castration instead of carbon credits.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by daddyroo45]

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 09:57 AM
How soon can this begin? How about tomorrow?

A decision involving the iconic polar bear could determine whether protecting endangered species might also help save the earth from global warming.

The Obama administration is approaching a weekend deadline to decide whether it should allow government agencies to cite the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the bear, for imposing limits on greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and automobiles even if the pollution occurs thousands of miles from where the polar bear lives.

"Gov't faces weekend deadline on polar bear rule"

The regulatory march to cap-and trade will begin soon. It could be announced within the hour!

Fearful that putting the bear under the federal species law might be used to force regulation of carbon dioxide, the Bush administration issued a special rule: No action outside of the bear's Arctic habitat could be considered as endangering its survival.

The limitation, hailed by business groups, prompted lawsuits from environmentalists and action by Congress.

In March, the Democrat-controlled Congress authorized Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to rescind the Bush administration's special rule, thus avoiding complicated and time-consuming regulatory procedures. The deadline for such action is Saturday, 60 days after Congress acted.

Salazar, who was said to be weighing the issue, scheduled a news conference for 11:30 a.m. EDT Friday to discuss it.

So, how can rule affecting polar bears impact business, the economy, and consumers?

Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, urged Salazar to keep the Bush rule in place.

Along with the recent ruling by the Environmental Protection Agency that carbon dioxide is a health hazard, [i/]"withdrawing this rule would give the federal government vast new climate change power to regulate any federal or federally permitted activity in our country that emits greenhouse gases,[i/]" said Hastings. "This reaches far beyond the scope of polar bears in the Arctic and could put jobs and economic activity across the entire nation at risk."

Here it comes!

Watch the news for details.


[edit on 8-5-2009 by jdub297]

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:17 AM
This is just another way to tax the American people, but in disguise. Force the companies to pay more, well guess what, those companies are not going to take a loss, they will pass the bill on to the consumer.
Thanks O


posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:05 AM
This "tax" or "credit" hasn't worked in Europe, so why do they think it will work in the US?

Washington’s Unpopular War on Energy

Similar cap and trade measures are already law in Europe. Even the more socialist-minded citizens on that continent are trying to reform current law because carbon emission output has only increased, along with already high prices.

It doesn't matter if it's unpopular and the people don't want it, it's another source of revenue for the greedy US government politicians in DC.

[edit on 5/8/2009 by Keyhole]

posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by Keyhole

Excellent find. "Nothing teaches like experience," no?

Except for those who are doomed to repeat the past.

Maybe Obama and Chu believe that if they keep doing the same thing over and again, the result will be different the next time! (This I believe, is a definition of insanity.)


deny ignorance


(p.s.: I'm bookmarking your link. jw)

top topics

log in