Environmental Groups Say Climate Bill Won't Help Common Folk
A Reuters story says some environmental groups are going after a climate bill meant to clear the air will do no favors for consumers. The piece of legislation, which is expected to come to a vote within a couple months, is geared to slash greenhouse emissions by nearly a fifth of 2005 levels by 2020.
The problem, the groups say, lie with a provision that let local utilities sell pollution permits. The assumption of the bill writers is that the utility companies will use the extra money to lower rates, but the concern is the companies will spend the money on hookers and candy canes.
Reuters writes:
But giving the credits away to companies presents problems because the firms would be regulated by state public utility commissions that in the past have faced charges that they were influenced by the companies, environmentalists said.
"Can we trust local utility companies to manage billions of dollars in value in a responsible manner that benefits consumers and reduces global warming pollution?" Frank O'Donnell, president of Washington based nonprofit Clean Air Watch, said in a white paper released on Wednesday. "Those commissions are political bodies."
The bill says the funds should be used for the benefit of ratepayers. But the bill's language is vague and power companies, which often have power distribution wings, could decide that building a new fossil fuel-powered plant would help lower bills, O'Donnell said.
Such silly talk. How can anyone doubt utility monopolies will treat their customers right?
Holes seen in U.S. climate bill's consumer shields [Reuters]
(Photo: Great Beyond)
Post a comment
Comments:
Will they be providing the hookers and candy canes to customers?
@Nick1693: Bingo. We have a winner.
But remember, no new taxes on the poorest 95% of Americans. Obama said so.
The state government oversight is corrupt and ineffective, but Federal oversight is squeeky clean. I get it.
sorry, but how is breathable air not helping common folk?
just saying- bad financially, good physically.
Okaaaay, so fix this provision so that - say - the utilities have to use these revenues for creating alternative, zero-emission sources of energy, then. Done!
Once the rates go up, people will be pissed off, unless said rate increases are offset by the cap/trade sale proceeds.
A pissed off electorate is going to go after somebody - either the utilities or the politicians (and by extension, the environmental groups) responsible for this bill.
My money is on the legislation and politicians catching the brunt of it, but I suppose we'll find out soon enough.
Why would a bill, purportedly designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, offer any benefits to consumers anyway? The ability to trade emissions caps would offset long-term cost increases for utilities as they transition to cleaner, but more expensive, energy sources. The line about helping consumers is a red herring to get the bill passed.
So we're gonna give a company a state sponsored monopoly in an area, then we're gonna give them money, and we just expect them to lower their rates? The only incentive companies have to lower rates is to undercut the competition and get people to buy their stuff. When people are forced to purchase from them, why would they ever lower their rates?
This is not a good idea. Why do these politicians think Industry is there FOR the consumer??
Oh. That's right. They think THEY hold the monopoly on corruption.
"Pollution Permits" as a whole are not the way to reduce emissions. Letting people buy their way out of progressing to a cleaner business model won't help anything except lining the pockets of Industry, and in turn, Politicians.
The least costly solution to just tax all pollution. Tax all pollution but get rid of all income and capital gains tax. We should only tax things we don't want (pollution) and limit taxing things that are good (income).
@RStui: Thank you! That was the first thing I thought when I read "Polution Permits". It's like "Okay, we want you guys to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Oh BTW, here are some polution permits. You'll know what to do with them". It's the typical American self-flagelating reacharound. We want the feeling of doing the right thing, but without putting forth the effort, if at all possible.
@HiPwr: Sure, if we can dump the waste in your (and your children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's, and their children's backyard.
...We'll figure out what to do about the rest of the half-life remaining tomorrow morning, 'kay?
@MedwinHizhouse: I, like many, would like to see that any cap/trade revenues be rolled into the considerable investment pool needed to make their other energy generations more green. That'd count in my book as "helping consumers".
The public utilities in Kentucky have a great system worked out. Every other year, they go to the public utility commission and say, "We're broke, our infrastructure is old, we need to raise rates 40%."
The PUC people get on TV and say, " We're not going to let that bad old utility just take money from the good ol' people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. They're not going to have their way with us, we're only going to give them a 20% increase."
This has happened every year as long as I've lived year. It's such a joke, I'm sure the companies have long ago figured out just to ask for double what they need, plus a little extra for greasing the pocket of the members of the utility commission.
@Trai_Dep: I thought we didn't care about burdening our children's children's children with such things as nuclear waste and massive deficits.
@Trai_Dep: I'm sure the government wouldn't waste that revenue. After all, they were so prudent with Social Security money.
@Trai_Dep: Are you kidding me? Are you one of those that thinks that this massive Social Security debacle looming in the horizon will just blow over? If a private industry were running Social Security, they would have been bankrupt 40 years ago. That is if nit-wit politicians didn't bail them out.
@Trai_Dep: How do you plan on getting the biggest polluters on the planet to adopt it? We have no cards to play against China.
Companies or groups love to set up fake "Action Groups" "Grassroots Movements" etc.. and give them cute names FOR EXAMPLE like "Clean Water for America" when they are really industries or groups who pollute our waterways. They are using fake organizations to fight for or against legislation they want or don't want. I guess the best one was the Swiftboat campaign by Karl Rove and the Republicans against Kerry. As soon as the industy/groups get what they want the "organizations" (which contain a handful of members) disappear and are never heard from again. That is how trained we are to believe crap.
Ha! Cool. I've actually been to Hole N The Rock in Utah. It's a gas station and the convenience store is in this tunneled out sandstone hill. But I digress. The Climate Bill WON'T HELP ANYBODY except the asshats who are trading carbon credits.
@savdavid:
Yeah, that's a nice theory. Too bad I actually know one of the Swift Boat boys who served with Kerry and he said Kerry was a total pussy in combat.
I wasn't aware that environmentalists were even concerned with consumer costs in the first place. If anything, they WANT energy costs to be as sky-high as possible. $10/gallon gasoline? Great! $5/kwh electricity? Fabulous!
Their whole plan, from the beginning, has been to add in layers of extraneous costs ... using "cap and trade" plans to add overhead to energy-generating businesses, or directly adding taxes along Pigovian lines. No environmentalist group that I've ever heard of, has ever desired a reduction of consumer costs for energy. They believe energy production and consumption are horrifically evil and not to be permitted. Why would they want it to be cheaper?
This leads me to conclude that "Clean Air Watch" is a "pseudo-environmentalist" group, in that it's actually an industry organization masquerading as an environmentalist group. Which is almost worse than what the "real" environmentalist groups are trying to do to the American consumer ... at least they're sincere about wanting to cost me a fortune.
@PsiCop: That's a pretty big brush you're using there my friend.
Might want to change that too...
"The evironmentalists that I personally know(because I cannot speak for the entire population of the planet that wants clean air and less pollution)..."
Anyone who ever thought the green movement was AT ALL concerned with "helping the common folk" has been asleep.
They could care less about the common folk. They want to help the polar bears, and don't at all mind if poor families utility bills double in order to do it.
This bill is by no means perfect but it is a necessary step to reducing green house gases. The plan is to make it more costly to pollute, so we have incentive to buy from companies which pollute less and there for are able to sell their cheaper products. The hope is that consumer demand will drive companies that emit lots of green house gases to develop more efficient and cleaner technologies in order to continue to compete in the market. Consumers who buy from companies that emit a lot need to pay more to account for the external cost of the pollution. Reducing green house gases is about much more than saving polar bears but about reducing the very real effects of climate change, which will effect humans around the world, most often those who are too poor to adapt to the changes and who, in most likelyhood, did not emit the majority of the green house gases causing the problem. A cap and trade system works; as proven in the 90's by the cap and trade system established to reduce sulfur dioxide. Action needs tone taken now. This bill is imperfect but it's the best were going to be able to pass in a world were polititions are more concerned about popular opinion than making hard choices that possibly raise prices for there constituents but in the long term save money because the cost of dealing with the problems will be reduced. The most important thing we need to make sure of is that we have a system of non-elected officials overseening that the reductions in green house gases are being met by each company.
I imagine they'll just keep prices the same and take the money for themselves. *coughTARPcough*