Attack of the Republicans: Cap and trade is dead

Global warming?

Today's Senate race in Massachusetts is the big story on Wall Street. According to the pollsters this political race, again, epitomizes change. This time, however, it's not a change against Bush and Republicans. This time, the message is for Democrats that have either gone too far, or not in the right direction, at least according to the populist majority.

Even if Republican Scott Brown loses, the Wake Up call has been delivered. Issues such as any big 'cap & trade' program, according to the pundits, are now dead.

So, why not give foreign oil dependence a try? Finish reading: Attack of the Republicans: Cap and trade is dead

Is it time to put cap and trade on the back burner?

The people continue to grow more skeptical of global warming

A few weeks ago I attended HybridFest in Madison, WI. While there I experienced some of Wisconsin's coldest summer days in recorded history. Certainly, such whether isn't proof that global warming isn't real, but it does cause pause, especially for those already skeptical of CO2 emissions and their effect upon global warming.

And, as the economy continues to struggle, more polls seem to indicate that public support for fighting global warming is declining. This simply isn't an issue that is going to unite the people into a positive, forward-thinking movement, at least not today.

Besides, what's the rush to cap and trade legislation? Other countries that have been more progressive on CO2 limits are largely failing to meet their emissions requirements. Might it not be time to think outside of the box?

For instance, foreign oil dependence is an issue that resonates much more with the people. Of course, that doesn't mean the people are willing to be taxed more to fight such dependence. Nonetheless, it is an issue that is a far easier to sell to the American public. More important, a serious declaration of war against foreign oil dependence could have a huge effect on CO2 emissions, on igniting innovations in efficient, aka green, technology in a package the people just might buy.

Ultimately, can America really move forward by forcing Americans to act against their beliefs? Might it not be worth rallying America around an issue in which most Americans can believe?

Will cap and trade reduce foreign oil dependency?

Does it all come down to gas prices?

As the House quickly tweaks 1200 pages of cap and trade legislation, cutting chunks of it, unfortunately, into large slices of pork, I cannot help but wonder how much cap and trade will affect foreign oil dependency.

A couple months ago USAToday published research that suggested that by 2015 cap & trade would add between .16 cents on the low end to $2.58 on the high end to the price of a gallon of gas.

That's a lot of variability. If cap and trade only results in an extra .16 cents at the pump, it seems hard to believe that cap and trade's affect on gas prices would have much impact on foreign oil dependency. Of course, if the high end becomes reality, we'll significantly reduce foreign oil dependency, but we'll also kill the US auto industry.

Is cap and trade the right approach to foreign oil dependency? Is foreign oil dependency irrelevant compared to global warming?

Carbon schmarbon: It's foreign oil dependency, stupid

Does global warming resonate with America?

Today, most Americans - most of Main Street - believe that hybrid cars are "strategically" important to the United States. Yet, most of these Americans have real doubts about global warming. So, how do most Americans reconcile this bit of irony?

Foreign oil dependency.

According to recent data, most Americans believe hybrid cars are "strategically" important because of foreign oil dependency, followed by saving auto jobs. For most Americans, global warming is not a reason to buy a hybrid vehicle.

Yet, Democrats, when discussing the issue of the oncoming auto revolution, always frame this conversation around global warming. Around carbon. Around cap and trade. Main Street, however, does not agree with Democrats on this issue.

Of course, once America also believed 'separate, but equal' was a fair policy until the government led America out of that insanity. So, the government leading the people, rather than the people leading the government, is sometimes a necessary evil.

Nonetheless, why not more of a focus on ending foreign oil dependence? Inevitably, ending foreign oil dependence would have a positive impact on global warming. Moreover, ending foreign oil dependency, like beating the Russians to the moon, is something almost every American could rally behind. Foreign oil dependence is the thread that can sew unity amongst the workers, industry, and and the government.

Ultimately, inevitably, American tax payers are going to risk as much as a few hundred billion on the US auto industry. Why not leverage this investment into a national campaign to end foreign oil dependency? Besides if you bring average Americans into this movement, it will probably be easier to work cap & trade legislation through Congress in the background.

Will cap and trade increase auto fuel economy?

How much must gas cost to make the Fusion hybrid a big seller?

So, Bill Ford Jr. is now advocating a gas tax. It seems everyone in the auto industry is hyping a gas tax these days. It provides such a perfect excuse for Big 3 inaction on fuel economy. Of course, its hard to argue that Bill and others don't have a bit of a point.

Still, why now? Is it just because the White House has indicated a gas tax isn't even on the table, as it all comes down to cap & trade now?

I'm not really sure, but I have wondered lately how cap & trade would affect gas prices. One article in USAToday recently claimed that by 2015 a cap & trade program would add between .16 cents on the low end to about $2.58 on the high end to the price of a gallon of gas.

Certainly, an additional .16 cents won't accomplish anything. $2.58, on the other hand, would have a pretty big effect. Nonetheless, that's quite a range and a lot of uncertainty.

Obviously, cap & trade is about carbon, but is such a program too open ended if the goal is ending foreign oil dependency?

Obama asks Americans to join clean energy "mission"

Will Americans support cap & trade?

As I write this, President Obama is speaking in Newton, IA about the need for a new era of energy exploration in the US. Thus, based on the EPA's rule that CO2 is dangerous to America's health, it's time for the US to pass a CO2 cap & trade program. According to Obama, the "American people are ready to be part of a mission," a mission to end foreign oil dependency and move from dirty energy to clean energy via carbon trading.

Are you ready to join the mission? I am.

Cap & Trade versus Carbon Tax

The carbon challenge

I've long been a fan of a gas tax that puts a bottom on gas prices around $3.00, while providing tax credits for the buyers of efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars. With the IEA now predicting no recovery in oil prices for the next year, gas prices are probably set for a significant pullback after the summer driving season. Eventually, as we claw our way out of this recession, an uptick in gas-guzzler sales might thus be imminent.

The current administration has not been supportive of a gas tax, but it has been very supportive of a CO2 cap and trade program. Yet, many claim that giving Congress control of trillions worth of CO2 waivers could be a dangerous exercise in Congressional pork-barreling. Thus, CNBC is featuring a special Carbon Challenge this week.

Today, CNBC asked which is better: cap & trade versus a carbon tax. Any thoughts?

Can Democrats survive cap and trade?

A Congressional conundrum

I believe that humans have contributed to global warming. I also believe that human caused global warming might have actually prevented an ice age that would have had a devastating impact on the human population. Regardless, it's time to regulate CO2 emissions, even if you don't believe in human-made global warming.

Like it or not regulating CO2 is ultimately about efficiency, and with today's massively growing population, limited resources, and the ever increasing computerization of the world's economy, efficient, clean energy is the only sustainable way forward.

Still, a significant percent of Americans don't agree, and even more don't believe that now, in this recession, is the time to deal with such a monumental issue. Nonetheless, now that the EPA is set to label CO2 emissions a danger to health, doesn't the government have to act? Yet, can Democrats retain control of Congress if they push ahead with a cap and trade plan?

Cap-and-trade or gas tax: Are we fooling ourselves?

Are both too offensive to Americans?

Oil is trading around $50 per barrel, yet supplies are building and there are oil tankers full of oil with no where to go. If oil prices were driven purely by the fundamentals, oil would probably be about $20 bucks a barrel. And, until the US economy fully kicks back into gear - something that could take longer than Obama's first term - oil prices probably won't increase significantly.

So, will $7500 tax credits on 60,000 Chevy Volts per year really inspire the American populace into greater fuel efficiency, or will 60,000 Volts simply serve as a tool to balance GM's CAFE requirements, enabling the sale of more gas-guzzlers?

Recently, because of Congressional concern and consumer sentiment, President Obama indicated that cap-and-trade could be put on hold. Likewise, Obama has not been a strong proponent of a gas tax. Still, aren't we fooling ourselves if we believe that real change can be achieved without a significant change in energy prices? Of course, aren't we fools to believe that Americans are ready for such change?

Obama ready to forget cap-and-trade?

Alternative energy tax credits instead

According to CNBC's White House correspondent John Harwood, President Obama is ready to give up on his cap-and-trade program in order to protect his plans for health care. Instead of cap-and-trade, Harwood claimed Obama would focus more on tax incentives for promoting alternative energy. Likewise, I'd assume that if Congress increases CAFE standards based on the EPA's new "health danger" designation regarding CO2 emissions, much of what cap-and-trade would have accomplished for the auto industry can still be achieved.

Auto bailout: No strings attached?

Is Obama's task force being realistic?

Earlier this week, the EPA called CO2 a "health danger", setting the impetus to higher national fuel economy standards, probably similar to what California is seeking, in addition to a carbon trading cap-and-trade program. Both programs, many auto analysts have noted, could be detrimental to Big 3 viability.

At the same time, it appears a 9 1/2 million vehicle run rate per year could be around a couple of years - something which US automakers have called unsustainable. 11 1/2 million vehicles per year is closer to the Big 3's threshold.

Yet, here we are at the deadline for more automaker aid, which is coming with few strings. However, if the run rate sticks at 9 to 10 million autos per year, automakers will need more and more help, and that is without higher fuel economy standards or cap-and-trade. Add these programs, and the need for significantly more auto aid will be necessary.

Isn't it time for a more comprehensive conversation regarding these intricately intertwined issues from Washington? Is that too much to chew in a sound bite?

EPA ready to institute cap and trade, will voters comply?

Greenhouse gases to be a "health danger"

The EPA is ready to declare carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a public health danger according to reports. If the White House accepts the EPA's proposal, sweeping change is forthcoming. Already, the White House has indicated that it wants Congress to act on this issue, such as in greater fuel economy standards - probably similar to those California is seeking - along the way to President Obama's cap-and-trade plan.

But will consumers balk?

Ultimately, such legislation will lead to higher auto prices - higher everything prices. Assuming cap-and-trade revenues will help subsidize these higher costs for low income consumers might be too big of an assumption for many voters. And with a majority of Americans now picking the economy over the environment, serious plans to regulate CO2 emissions could become a political braking point for the Obama Administration if the economy does not soon recover.

Some Democratic splintering on cap-and-trade

Levin wants a program, just not Obama's

Michigan's Senators, and a number of other Democrats, are slowly but steadily preparing a possible bloc to President Obama's plans for a carbon cap-and-trade program. So, far Levin is one of 7 Democrats that have joined a number of Republicans in voicing concerns over the"budget reconciliation process, which would limit chances for debate and amendments, to debate cap-and-trade legislation," according to the Detroit News.

Many of the same legislators have voiced their willingness to support some sort of action on cap-and-trade, but not exactly the one proposed by Obama.

Gas tax, cap-and-trade: Can we go green without pain?

Don't energy prices have to increase?

There is no doubt that cheap gas has helped pump up the US economy. Unfortunately, Americans didn't use cheap gas to efficiently and intelligently create wealth, we used it quite inefficiently. American consumerism has devolved into bling, not necessity. Our car, for instance, had to be bigger, faster or shinier than our neighbors as we kept up with the Jones's.

Them days are over says the new sheriff in town.

Still, I've been watching a lot of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's testimony explaining that cap-and-trade tax revenue will help Americans deal with the future's higher energy costs via tax deductions and credits, etc..

Perhaps. Seems a little too perfect world for me to believe.

Nevertheless, considering the impact that foreign oil dependency has had on the world the last couple decades, coupled with the threat of global warming, shouldn't consumers have to accept their share of pain at the pump? Can US politicians put all blame for the inefficient consumerist habits of Americans solely on corporations? Or, do we the people also have to accept some responsibility?

EPA to hear California waiver arguments today

Do states have CO2 rights?

Today the EPA will open a public hearing on whether states should have the right to regulate CO2 emissions. Automakers, environmentalists and state officials will convene in Arlington, VA today to debate the matter.

Do state CO2 emissions matter any more? Does President Obama's cap-and-trade program make this issue less relevant?