Faith & Social Justice: In the spirit of Richard Overton and the 17th C. Levellers

Cap & Trade Could Greatly Reduce Deficit

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the Waxman-Markey “cap and trade” and found that it will not only fight the catastrophic climate change of global warming, but that it will NOT add to the deficit.  In fact, it will raise revenue that could greatly reduce the federal deficit.

That’s information that should published far and wide, so that Waxman-Markey gets Senate support and passes.  A way to save the planet, help rebuild the economy, AND reduce the federal deficit–that’s something that needs widespread support!

UPDATE:  Contrast this with the energy proposal of the House Republicans:  Give away billions of more taxpayer dollars to the oil, coal and nuclear industries and draft a bill that explicity refuses to recognize the impact of global warming–even on endangered species (in defiance of Supreme Court rulings–during the Bush era– that the Environmental Protection Agency had the authority to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions as a pollutant).  The Bush-era Pentagon classified both global warming AND U.S. dependence on fossil fuels as national security threats, but the Republicans still won’t do anything useful to meet the threat.  The biggest threat to our nation right now? House Republicans and the desire of Democrats to be “bi-partisan” instead of just ignoring them and doing the right thing even if it gets ZERO Republican votes.

June 9, 2009 - Posted by | ecology


  1. “Greatly” reduce the deficit? MAYBE break even, and then it will likely become a creeping stealth tax.


    Comment by stan | June 9, 2009

  2. Obama wants to spend 2 Trillion dollars that we don’t have. Keep throwing money at it. The Chinese love such shenanigans !!

    Comment by Paul | June 10, 2009

  3. Sigh. Same old song and dance. If we don’t stop global warming, we will have TOTAL economic meltdown across the world. The cap and trade brings IN revenue and could lead to a green revolution that is one of the few ways out of the Bush recession and it will be a major step against catastrophic climate change. The Chinese will soon be buying green tech from the U.S. to help cope with their own huge ecological crises.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | June 10, 2009

  4. Michael read Joe Scarborough’s book
    “The Last Best Hope”. He is a true conservative with ideas unlike many Republicans and Democrats who utter inane verbiage.

    Comment by Paul | June 11, 2009

  5. I have despised Joe Scarborough since he was a U.S. Rep. from FL. I see no reason to read him. Every day, he shows his total ignorance on TV.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | June 11, 2009

  6. I think that the man talks sense Michael and his rhetoric is far from a Limbaugh or his ilk. And why would you despise the man ?

    Comment by Paul | June 12, 2009

  7. This is really off-topic, Paul, but here goes in no particulaar order.: Scarborough is a bully on the set, cutting off his guests and, often, his co-host, Mika. He has even stormed off the set when confronted with a headline or study he doesn’t like. He was one of the cheerleaders of the war with Iraq and STILL thinks it was justified. He defends torture and Gitmo–which, in my book, makes him so morally beyond the pale, that I want to vomit. He repeats the talking points of Dick Cheney & co. and, when confronted with counterfactual evidence, just talks over people. He also lies like today claiming that he never criticized the DHS report in April that warned about an increase in rightwing extremist violence–when you can find video of him LAUGHING over the report and calling Janet Napolitano “paranoid.” I could go on, but this is enough.

    And, even if he is a “true conservative,” Paul, that is not a plus with me since I think of modern movement conservatism (beginning with the Goldwater generation) as behind most of what has gone wrong with America since c. 1980.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | June 12, 2009

  8. Michael ever heard of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk or William F. Buckley. And if you like pundits who talk over people listen to Chris Matthews. And Rachel Maddow oozes condescension.

    Comment by Paul | June 12, 2009

  9. I was a double-major of religious studies and political science, Paul. I have read Burk and Buckley, though not Kirk. I am not persuaded. Yes, I find Chris Matthews rude, just like Scarborough. However, I like Rachel Maddow and have found her polite even when her conservative guest was not.

    I still say that the problem is not returning to “true conservatism.” The problem IS modern movement conservatism.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | June 13, 2009

  10. Cap and Trade will not reduce deficits, it will increase them exponentially in step with the massive increase in unemployment. Simply meeting the targets of the Kyoto accords will decrease “production” to levels decades ago without commensurately decreasing demand. This fatuous concept will transfer production to China, India and even Russia. These countries are exempt from such requirements and if they weren’t they would be extremely adverse to cooperating with that. You will see that if Cap & Trade is implemented in arresting the production of C02 which is not a pollutant that we will be forced into a downturn not dissimilar to that of the 20’sl. This is an ill conceived and in my opinion and inappropriate solution to a modern day concept of Global Warming propagated by Mr. Gore who has already made $100 million off it and stands as the primary Carbon Credit broker to make $Billions. He is a modern day Elmer Gantry and Charlatan. I have written about the other planets and “moons” in our solar system running parallel changes in their climate and all has been relative to Sun Spots, not SUV’s.

    Michael, as a man that feels deeply about the “under privileged” in society, you need to seriously consider the impact of this Cap & Trade fiasco on the most vulnerable among us. Cap & Trade does not reduce the production of one pound of Carbon, it just shuffles it around, with most of that shuffling to India, China and Russia. This is one you cannot afford to be wrong on and I believe you are just that. That word Catastrophic is quite inflamatory and totally off the mark. Just my opinion………..steve

    Comment by Next Stop Lauderdale | June 19, 2009

  11. NextStop,

    Progressives don’t do economics….as we just found out on the healthcare embarrassment that has them scrambling and reining in expectations. You are right that more people will suffer from the 1-2% decline in GDP for a century.

    Technology is the answer. Here is an article from the Atlantic on some of the technological responses being looked at though all still in their infancy. Most very cheap. Some very scary. But this is how the problem will end IF, IF we should ever exceed old global highs of the 30’s and ’98.

    Michael, how about some Iran coverage. This is what irked me about pacifism when I was a card carrying member. Pacifists rarely speak up when the violence is going down (in my case, it was Hauerwas’ (with Stassen) class and Kosovo….silence).

    Comment by stan | June 20, 2009

  12. Cap and Trade’s only objective is to further fleece the american taxpayer. This legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the environment and will punish low income families with exorbitant increases in energy costs. It also “federalizes” areas of commerce and life that have been traditionally local concerns such as zoning and energy ratings for windows in our homes. This legislation is intrusive and vindictive and needs to be resisted at all costs.

    Comment by allan bataiff | June 26, 2009

  13. Nonsense on stilts.

    Comment by Michael Westmoreland-White | June 26, 2009

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: