This bill, which is being labeled "climate control" legislation, is pre-supposed on the fallacy that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. It creates carbon offsets which will be sold and traded from one industry to another. And will result in energy companies raising their rates to "offset" the offsets.
With the cost of oil in the past two years fluctuating wildly and going sky high last year during the election campaign, much time was spent on the need to dramatically change our energy policies. Some said "drill here, drill now" and others said "cap and trade." The latter group won the election.
So here we are in the summer of 2009 being presented with an energy bill that does nothing but introduce a way to raise taxes and steal money from hard working Americans.
So what are some alternatives, you might sarcastically huff? Well, basically anything that will reduce our need for foreign oil, begin research into alternative energy and utilize more efficiently the alternatives we have now.
Where will we get such alternatives? Anything we begin now won't have any effect for twenty years.
Not only is that statement a ridiculous one (we could be there now if they had continued the alternative energy drive in the 70's - which was thirty years ago), but there are new technologies that are in the works now that we could hasten with a little support (private or governmental).
Yet2.com Marketplace has inventions it offers for license at their website. One of these is an oil additive (ZDDP - or Zinc Diakyl Dithiophosphate) that has been in use for over 75 years and enhances it (adding a fluorine to its chemical backbone). The resultant technology improves fuel economy by 3%, reduces engine wear and prolongs the life of the catalytic converter. Big whoop you might say. But 3% improvement in fuel economy is better than zero, which is what we have now. And it is technology that is available NOW. It is a more realistic choice for car manufacturers to attempt to meet improved efficiency guidelines imposed by the government without massive (and expensive) retooling and using technology that doesn't even exist yet.
Another advancement in alternative sources can be found at Ballard Power Systems in Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. They have designed, developed, and manufactured zero-emission proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells. These fuel cells are clean, quiet electromechanical devices that convert hydrogen into electricity with zero emissions. Although the technology is not adapted yet for automobiles (it will take a little more research and development, but it will happen), it is currently in use in power plant, forklifts and residential cogeneration systems.
These are but two examples I found with little effort. I am sure there are smarter more dedicated people (who have nothing better to do than look for this stuff) that can find more examples of emerging technologies.
Where can we find these amazing examples of technology, you ask? How can the government even know of their existence, you might offer as an excuse.
These are companies that have been working with NASA.
Yes, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Yes, that NASA.
So why all the rush to push this energy bill that does nothing but destroy capitalism and dig deeper and deeper into our pockets? Well, that is a really good question, and one you might want to seriously pursue with your elected representatives in Congress. My own personal belief is that it has nothing to do with energy and everything to do with the real agenda of this administration.
Get on the phone, send an email, write a snail mail (but send it next day) and let your Congressman know that you want real energy legislation, not just a tax increase. Tell them you want real technology to deal with the challenges we face and not some politically motivated ideologically based piece of law making that will only take money from your pocket and put it in theirs.
(note - go to the Library of Congress site and search the word "climate" and you will find no less than 90 bills floating around Congress that deal with greenhouse gases, global warming or cap & trade in one way or another.)
Sources:
Ballard Case Studies
http://www.protomold.com/Case_Studies/UnitedStates/PM_Ballard.pdf
yet2.com - TechPak
Published by Charles B Reynolds
Published author, political junkie, and lover of the written word. Writing workshop and seminar instructor. Journalist at Examiner.com and Imperfect Parent.com. Blogger of the internationally read “Thinkin... View profile
Pollution Regulations a Step Towards Cap-and-TradeGovernors lead anti-pollution efforts.
Cap and Trade Opponents WrongConservatives are fighting America's Climate Security Act of 2007 for wrong reasons. - Cap and Trade Tax Families to Get Hit with $300-Per-Month Electricity-Bill Incr...A new tax will raise all American households' energy bills substantially.
- Cap and Trade Carbon Pollution Managment Program Wrong AnswerSolutions to pollution must aim to solve problems witha plan, sooner, rather than (much) later, Direct Energy Taxes would provide funds for energy restructuring, as well as for Cloud incentives that work.
- Obama and New Deal ParallelsSimilarities between the policies of Barack Obama and FDR.
- Why Cap and Trade and Will it Stop There?
- Costs and Benefits of a Cap and Trade System
- Will Cap and Trade Cost Texas?
- Cap-and-Trade and the U.S. Economy
- Carbon Tax or Cap-and-Trade?
- Gore and Gingrich Debate Cap and Trade
- NCPA: Senate Must Stop Pushing for "Cap and Trade" Policy on Climate Change




1 Comments
Post a CommentExcellent, Charles. We would have all the energy we need if, for the past 30 years, we wouldn't have given into the environmental nutcases who stopped any kind of offshore drilling, don't want any trees chopped down, and demonized coal production, putting thousands of people out of work. The new administration's answer for everything is "more control". We wanted change - we're sure gonna get it.