Skip to comments.EPA Lawyers: Cap-And-Trade 'Fatally Flawed'
Posted on 11/11/2009 5:13:19 PM PST by Kaslin
Warming: After stifling a report questioning the science behind climate change, the EPA is censoring two of its lawyers for saying the proposed solutions are also problematical. The debate isn't over. It's being suppressed.
In the proud tradition of EPA whistle-blower Alan Carlin, whose leaked study blew the lid off the EPA's hyped and flawed science behind climate change, two EPA lawyers, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, have produced a Web video titled "A Huge Mistake." In it they say cap-and-trade in general and the Waxman-Markey bill in particular are the wrong answers anyway.
Williams and Zabel do not deny climate change or its alleged dangers. They are fans of alternative energy and support carbon fees, rebated to energy consumers, to curb emissions. But in two segments of the video they say cap-and-trade is a "big lie" and carbon offsets are a "big rip-off."
Williams states: "Cap-and-trade for climate change has been tried in Europe. It produced harmful volatility in energy prices and few greenhouse gas reductions. It raised energy prices for consumers and raised billions in windfall profits for utilities."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Similar to saying that a test for witchcraft is ‘fatally flawed’.
The Liberals are drunk with power and obsessed with grabbing as much control over the US as possible.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think these lawyers are complaining that the cap & trade bill does not sufficiently reduce CO2 output and is too easy for business to get around. So these lawyers are actually even more radical than the House democrats. The lawyers are not on our side, they’re just complaining about how the bill is written. At least that’s how I interpret their statements.
On the other hand, Alan Carlin is questioning the scientific basis of the hoax known as “global warming.” He has his act together and he’s on our side.
You're essentially correct. They're not on our side, but I think the lawyers are probably well meaning in their selective ignorance. They understand economics and the past history of cap and trade schemes well enough to know that the bill will do nothing to reduce carbon emmissions.
Unfortunately they don't understand science and are deluded into believing the anthropogenic global warming hoax. Perhaps their explanation as fellow Green Cult adherents will will help convince others in the Green Cult that cap and trade is a mistake.
two EPA lawyers, Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, have produced a Web video titled "A Huge Mistake."
Front-page article in the WSJ on 9/11/2006 said the same about Germany. This is not news -- except that people aren't paying attention.
These two are just the elitists in the classroom next to Al Gore. They still know better than we do. It’s...it’s...compassionate liberalism.
I don’t care for their reasoning as long as they help quash a bill that will kill the economy.
“You’re essentially correct. They’re not on our side, but I think the lawyers are probably well meaning in their selective ignorance. They understand economics and the past history of cap and trade schemes well enough to know that the bill will do nothing to reduce carbon emmissions.”
Actually, the sulphur cap and trade in the Great Lakes region worked pretty well to reduce emissions and “acid rain” if I remember correctly.
It would reduce energy consumption. Seems to me the issues are, given that CO2 warming remains an unproven hypothesis:
(1) Why force the market to an unnatural and very expensive solution;
(2) Why create a new form of intangible property dependent on and manipulable by the government. In effect this is just another form of unreal wealth, untethered to actual productive activity;
(3) Why should we impose a new and enormous indirect tax on citizens; and
(4) Why should we transfer huge amount of wealth from the middle class to the government class and the parisitical-on-gvt-business-class?
Curing “Global Warming” seems like a means, not an end.
Thanks for the ping.
I thank you both for your comments on this thread.
I am in the process of compiling some information on this topic because I learned that Jeff Flake, AZ Rep has jumped on the band-wagon and proposed his own version of Cap and Trade-HR 2380.
He claims it is a “revenue-neutral carbon tax” that will allow us to move toward energy independence while minimizing the impact on the economy.”
My concern is that he is giving credibility to a SCAM! Also, since when does a tax ever equate to a “revenue-neutral” situation?
Following is an open letter that I am sending to Arizona Congressman Jeff Flake and will hand deliver to JD Hayworth at the KFYI Smackdown on Wednesday November 18th.
Congressman Jeff Flake,
I have been concerned about a couple of issues that I recently became aware of. I would like to get some feedback from you regarding your version of the cap and trade bill that you recently proposed. I called your office on Thursday, November 5th and asked for additional information on several topics that concern me including:
Your position on Cap and Trade
Your position on the Health Care Bill
Your position on Term Limits
Your position on the censure of Joe Wilson
To start with, I am very concerned that by your introduction of the bill HR 2380, you have given credibility to a SCAM. There is a stack of peer-reviewed science that debunks the Global Warming/Climate Change propagandists. Please see the article below written by James Simpson, featured in the American Thinker and available on the internet under the title, US Sovereignty and the Climate Summit. It provides a link to Lord Moncktons recent presentation given here in America, featured on Glenn Beck and currently going viral via Youtube. I imagine you have probably seen it, but if not I encourage you to take a few minutes and watch it.
Lord Monckton is very concerned about the upcoming Copenhagen summit featured in the article below. He has stated and I quote, I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement. Does this alarm and apprehension from a man who has studied climate and environmental issues for a number of years concern you? It should, it concerns many scientists and American citizens.
I received a letter from your office in regard to my phone call, it states, I believe that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will allow us to move toward energy independence while minimizing the impact on the economy. Isnt this in direct conflict to your statement on November 5, 2008 in an article for the Washington Post, I suggest that we return to first principles. At the top of that list has to be a recommitment to limited government.?
You went on to state in that article, Second, we need to recommit to our belief in economic freedom. Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations may be on the discount rack this year, but the free market is still the most efficient means to allocate capital and human resources in an economy, and Americans know it. Now that weve inserted government deeply into the private sector by bailing out banks and businesses, the temptation will be for government to overstay its welcome and force the distribution of resources to serve political ends.
You echo my concerns in the following statement, Substituting political for economic incentives is not the recipe for economic recovery. I am concerned that your bill HR 2380 will be used for just that, political incentives.
I did not receive a response to my inquiry about your position on Health Care or Term Limits. I remember the days when you were in favor of term limits but I dont hear or read your commentary on this topic in recent statements that you have given. Why? Isnt it important to lead by example? I am sure you could offer your immense support to a strong conservative should you choose to honor your previous position on term limits.
In addition to these concerns, I was shocked to learn of your position on the resolution of disapproval regarding Joe Wilsons breach of decorum. Your explanation for that particular Yes vote included in the form letter I received stated, Over the past several months I have introduced nine privileged resolutions on the House floor, each of them alleging a similar breach of House decorum regarding the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. I could not in good conscience ignore Joe Wilsons breach of decorum simply because he is a Republican.
Your constituents are concerned about your conscience but they are even more concerned with the fact that President Obama was not being truthful in his presentation of the Healthcare bill. Joe Wilson spoke for many Americans when he shouted, You lie! We were proud that one member of Congress was willing to Call Obama out when it came to the preposterous Healthcare bill and the propaganda that he was speaking on live television. Your explanation in the form letter doesnt clarify the position but seems as though it is an insincere spin of the situation. Please explain this.
While I understand that Congressmen and women are extremely busy, please take approximately 4 minutes to watch this video from Lord Moncktons presentation as it is critical to the future of America.
You can watch him make his powerful concluding remarks in this Youtube video. (4 mins.)
Kathy Gibson Boatman
OK, good thing my body guard is around now, last time I posted something like this I was the victim of harrassment. It is time to be brave and celebrate Free Speech while we still have it in America!
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.