Cap & Invest: iCAP -- Consumer and Technology Focused Global Warming Legislation

Congratulations to the Huffington Post for launching a special "green" section in order to highlight environment and energy issues. Joining the chorus of millions who have taken extra steps -- both large and small -- to help save our planet.

It is now time for Washington to take a step as well.

This week the Senate began the discussion on climate legislation, and I applaud their efforts. Now it's time for the House to continue this urgent discussion and find common ground on new approaches to solve the climate crisis.

As Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming , I've held over 40 hearings, listening to scientists, consumers, governors, mayors, and community leaders on global warming. The chorus for action is deafening.

It's time for America to lead the world in the fight against global warming. We must cap pollution and invest in consumers, jobs and the clean technology of tomorrow, and we must start now.

This week, I introduced global warming legislation that attacks the climate crisis from a new direction. The Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (HR 6186), or iCAP, is science-based, technology-driven, market-fueled and consumer focused.

iCAP -- the small "i" a tip of the cap to the technological potential of clean energy -- proffers a new paradigm in global warming legislation: the Cap-and-Invest system. The bill caps pollution at 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It then uses a 100% auction system that sets a price on carbon, and allows companies to compete for reductions, or buy or trade credits within the system.

The bill makes polluters pay for sending global warming pollution into the atmosphere, taking revenues generated from the auction of permits, and reinvests that money back to American consumers and into promoting a clean energy economy. More than half of the funds from iCAP go directly to low- and middle-income American families to offset any increases in energy costs from the transition of our economy to low- or zero-carbon energy.

iCAP also invests in green collar job training for workers, energy efficiency programs, mass transit and smart growth solutions; because it's time to stop complaining about traffic jams and sprawl and put our nation on a path to the future.

Increased adaptation measures here in the United States and around the world will protect against global warming effects already expected because of our delay in cutting emissions. iCAP also provides funds to increase our ability to prepare people for severe weather events, and green building measures to help communities rebuild in an energy-saving manner in the event tragedy were to strike.

On the international front, iCAP's focus on renewable technology will enable the United States to engage countries such as China and India, while protecting vulnerable communities from the dangers of global warming including drought, famine and flood.

I announced iCAP during a speech last week to the Center for American Progress, and so far have been encouraged by feedback from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and environmental leaders. I would like the opportunity to hear from you as well. Please sign up on my website to stay informed as the fight against global warming heats up in Congress.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Dr. Rajendra Pachauri and the IPCC have put any debate to rest over the dangers of greenhouse gases. The impacts can be felt from the melting ice caps of Greenland to the rainforests of Brazil.

The passion to stop global warming rings loudest in the youth of today -- iCAP supports their call for a clean energy revolution, a represents a step to a better tomorrow.

Comments

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

I have the BEST idea of all, and as a cost analysis by trade I can authoritatively state the ROI for this is really, really GOOD:

Snap your wallets shut. It's time to make the corporatists scream UNCLE and give us what WE want, not the other way around. The Command-and-Control approach to environmental reform is backasswards. Straussian authoritarianism is for the birds.

Dang, that was easy.

If it's not green, local AND affordably priced, just don't buy it! Buy the greenest energy you can afford. Put the onus on the businessperson to make YOU happy. That's the way the free market is supposed to work, yes? It WILL reduce our carbon footprints to the levels we need them to be, and we'll all SAVE money instead of turning it over to the thieves in Congress.

What we have right now is NOT free market capitalism. We the People, lazy to the core, let the global corporatists (translation: fascists) take over our lives, shame on us. Here they are now, doing their d*mndest to harden the discourse before shoving their "solutions" down our throats: To have the little people foot their bills.

I say screw-em. They hoard 95% of the world's resources, let THEM pay for their own business infrastructure. Free market capitalism, if truly FREE, will bring the prices down as low as possible. That they aren't already is due to Congress' protection of the oligarchs.

[Norpag]

I'm continually amazed that people like Ed Markey continue to propose mad schemes to combat global warming when the earth is cooling. Data from Britains CRU ( Google Hadley CRU )show that for example average Global Sea Surface Temperatures have been falling since 2003. Average SSTs for the first four months of 2008 are cooler than for any yearly average post 1996.Since that time CO2 has risen 6%. There is little connection betwen anthropogenic CO2 and temperature. Solar studies suggest that a 30 year cooling trend may be starting . If so we would need more CO2 not less to try to maintain crop productivity and feed a rising population. The democrats and the press are acting like they did with Bush' non existent WMD and rushing to a completely unnecessary and indeed harmful war on CO2.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

I am glad to see that there is some action on this issue. it is long overdue.

however, the new spin is severely disappointing - cap and invest? can we please get away from labeling issues with 'feel good' phrases so that they sound appealing? cap and invest is now the new name for cap and trade, all because americans love the word 'invest', and because we need to make the idea sound good.

capping emissions is a great idea and absolutely has to happen. but trading emissions is the wrong approach. turning emissions into a commodity to be traded defeats the entire purpose of reducing emissions - they won't be reduced if you are creating a market for the "product." come on people, this is not the way to go.

[michellekraus]

Rep. Markey, I commend you on this comprehensive step forward to solving our global climate crisis. Your work and hearings are commendable. This week's filabuster ploy on the floor of the Senate was unconscionable given the severity of the problem. It is reason to rise up and pound our shoes on the table. These actions to defeat even the discussion in the Senate of the far reaching Warner Lieberman bill must not be lost in the dialogue about the presidential nominee. Please do not let this work go asunder.

You have done us a great service by bringing another far reaching piece of legislation to the House. Thank you. We have very little time left for these sheningans. And to the media outlets, please make sure the American public knows of these actions when they go to vote in November.

[joebhed]

"The bill caps pollution at 85 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It then uses a 100% auction system that sets a price on carbon, and allows companies to compete for reductions, or buy or trade credits within the system."
Allows companies to compete.
Allows companies to buy or trade credits.
All, within the system.

What system would that be, Mr. Markey?
Would that be what we commonly call a traders-dominated, futures-driven, financial market in commodities type of system?
Commodities called "allowances" to pollute?

So, what you're proposing is kind of a cross between the system that got us $4/gallon gasoline, and the system that got us the biggest financial crisis the world economy has seen in generations.
What you're proposing is not only more of the same, but worse.
Where are your balls, Mr. Markey?
Why aren't you person enough to propose an honest government solution to our major public policy problem for the future of the planet?
We need a carbon tax.
Straight out.
With specific uses and purposes.
Less costly than this cockamamy, so-yesterday, free-market proposal for a solution to climate change.
We don't want the friggin invisible hand to solve this problem.
WE want OUR hand in the deal.
Either that's you, Senator Markey, or you better get out of the new road.
SCRAP the Cap and Trade.
Carbon Tax Now !

[DavidJames]

joebhed,

I agree. A little blunt, but you bring up several major points. Why not a revenue neutral carbon tax? iCAP should not be a giveaway to big energy. It should be about assuring there are market incentives to reduce our carbon footprint and be energy use, without adding additional financial burdens to our low and middle income citizens.

The carbon tax with flat rebates could be made revenue neutral for the majority of our citizens. It is simple and is very difficult to game.

[mouselion]

"Would that be what we commonly call a traders-dominated, futures-driven, financial market in commodities type of system?" -- Eliminating the parasitic practice of futures trading would do much to lower prices in all sectors. It would also make a more direct path between the consumer and the energy conglomerates.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill..."[1] The First Global Revolution, Club of Rome, 1991

"...we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination.... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts.... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."[2] Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."[4] Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Here is the first quote in context. How nihilistic these people are! For the whole thing you can read The First Global Revolution at Google Books.

http://books.google.com/books?id=8RNKHGbzUuAC

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.

New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.

The common enemy of humanity is man.

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

[DavidJames]

THP,

The hoax here, is the gobal warming hoax site you have referenced in other comments at Huffington Post.

Global Warming and the physics that cause it can be demonstrated by anyone in their backyard. The wikipedia entry provides an excellent references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Nice try, but the tipping point for exposure of the global warming hoax was last summer. Headline taken from the senate's own environmental and public works website:

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id

Bottom line: Mankind's contribution to the climate can be measured, but it is so SMALL there is no reason for the government to shake us down for trillions more in tax money.

These cheap-azz corporatists are trying to get taxpayers to pay for business infrastructure. Here they hoard 95% of the WORLD's RESOURCES and they're coming to us, we the little people who are already suffering from their banking debacle, to finance something business ought to be financing itself. Shame on them.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Whoops, I meant the tipping point for the PUBLIC understanding the Global Warming Hoax was last AUTUMN. The active public debunking was beginning to succeed over the summertime.

Give it up, or at least start using the whitewash term (greenwash term?) "Climate Change" the way Gore does, because he knows global warming is horse pucky, and as the #1 shareholder in the new "carbon credit" economy he stands to lose billions as the public gets hip to the scam.

Thank GOD for honest politicians like California representative Dana Rohrabacher, whose brilliant speech mid-May drove home the conclusion every person with a critical thinking synapse left in his or her brain.

http://rohrabacher.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=91424

[DavidJames]

Rep. Makley,

Congratulations on introducing the iCAP bill.

You do not say at what level of family income the iCAP becomes revenue neutral.

"More than half of the funds from iCAP go directly to low- and middle-income American families to offset any increases in energy costs from the transition of our economy to low- or zero-carbon energy."

At what level of family income does the iCAP become revenue neutral? Less than $60,000, 80,000, $100,000? Being specific about this would go a long way toward minimizing opposition to iCAP in the current economic environment.

Regards,

[Javani]

I believe the auctioning off of permits is better. It will more efficiently destroy little and mid-size businesses. Without auctioning bureaucrats would be under some kind of pressure to apportion carbon caps and credits according to some fairness formula and subject to all sorts of bribery and such. With auctioning the big guys can outbid the little guys. No more need to compete against their products on the market, destroy them with the force of government regulatory powers, all the while smiling as if this were doing something for the environment! Green Power indeed!

Congressman, not getting the responses you thought you would get at HuffPost, eh?

[Strain]

We need more solar and wind energy production, not more taxes under whatever guise. There are literally millions of homes in this country that need to be retro-fitted with proper insulation. Builders should be FORCED to build green homes. And don't tell me how expensive it is. I know it will be expensive. But as expensive as the illegal war in Iraq? I think not. And how about seeing to it that maufactorers of furniture and carpeting quit using materials that add to the green house effect? No one has said a word about that yet. But guess what? Come next year, I won't be able to buy generic bronchial inhalers, because they ADD TO THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT! The CRAP on the market, that cost $65 bucks a pop, DON'T WORK! I'm on social security and having a really bad time making ends meet. Even with medicare (that's a joke), I can't afford to pay for an office call, much less the gasoline to get there, and definitely CANNOT afford $65 for something THAT DOESN'T WORK!

I know I'm veering off the topic, but we need to put regulations back in place (pre Regean), so we can feel safe about what we eat, what we wear, what our children play with, cars and appliance that last longer than 5 or 6 years......I could go on and on, but I'm sure you all know what I mean. Boy am I tired of all the political clap trap.

[freshnotbitter]

Strain, I agree, once you build in green standards at the beginning it will pay off in the long run. Builders always tell you "oh that will drive up the price" but actually such things don't drive up the price like poor unregulated lending practices just did.

Subprime loans tripled house prices in some places and people lined up around the block to buy them. Building green doesn't triple the price of the house, right?

Cap and trade is like a big pollution casino with DC acting as the "house". The house always wins.
I am also afraid that it is a republican trojan horse politically. The republicans are going to use cap and trade to strike fear into voters in November.

[ldelp84227]

I have to agree about the chemicals in our products are causing some of this global warming problem. Already they have talked about how the coral reeves are getting bleached from sun tan lotion. Just getting near sun tan lotion will send me into a migraine and vomiting. I am sure the problem with the frogs, bees, etc. are from the chemicals everywhere in our water soil and products.

And you are correct the inhalers don't work for those that have certain kinds of asthma. Irritant induced asthma is from irritants such as chemicals, car pollution, etc. I can't take a walk without smelling the fumes from people doing their wash from the dryer exhaust.

If they want to get green really get green then eliminate some of these chemicals everywhere. I don' t even want to buy any of those new light bulbs because of the mercury. They break and how do you dispose of them. Linda

[UnbiasView]

"We must cap pollution and invest in consumers, jobs and the clean technology of tomorrow"

So you think that taxing the crap out of business is going to create more jobs instead of less? I am interested to see your plan.

[joebhed]

I am not defending Markey's post.
As can be seen from my other comments.

I thought it worth mentioning that ALL the costs that will be paid for solving the climate chnage problem will ultimately and finally be paid by the people that consume goods and pay taxes.
It is the consumer and taxpayer that will pay all the costs.
For business, the tax is an expense that gets passed on in the product or service that the business vends.
And, of course, this is only proper.
It is the people that want to see timely, effective solutions to the problems related to climate change, and other aspects of environmental pollution.
I think we care because we see climate change as a threat to human life, among other things, and that, being human and all, we think we should do something about it.
We know its going to be expensive.
Saving the planet for ourselves and our grandkids will be very expensive, and economically disquieting.
But that is not a reason to not do it.
That is a reason for getting started as quickly as possible, like yesterday, in doing the readily do-able things, like energy-efficiency and renewable energy, and cost-effective co-generation and fuel-switching where the carbon reductions are worth the price to we consumers and taxpayers.
What we need is a bill right now that aims at doing those things, and includes a carbon tax.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

What we NEED is to snap our wallets shut and starve corporatism until it cries uncle. Then maybe we'll stop needing to fight their cockamamie scams.

[dora rice]

Markey stuff it!!!!!! No one cared for years and when we had the money to fight global warming. Now when the barrel of oil is 139.00 dollrs, now we should fight global warmin. I drove for years cars that bring 30 miles per gallon, that's my contribution toward global warming and the patriotic thing to do.
General Motors now are finally forced to close their SUV and Pick up plants. Forced to close them, not ever volunteered to build cars that would bring 50 miles per gallong. It was the Bush macho image, drive a SUV or a pick up that brings 12 miles per glallon of gas. The rest of the world is fed up with America, for their corrupt, and freely spending the world's energy by freely running motors and furnaces without any shame.Let's see what Obama will now do for America, besides enrichen himself.

[dora rice]

Markey stuff it!!!!!! we didn't do anything against global warming when we had the money.Now that oil hits 139.00 dollars a barrel and unemployment is rising and the stock market is down, now we supposed to spend money on global warming. My cars have for years brought 30 miles a gallon, that's my contribution to global warming. Now General Motors is finally forced to close some of the gas guzzler plants. Halleluja. They had to be forced by the free market otherwise they still would peddle the Hummer. Now they selling the Hummer plant. Anyone who drives a Hummer, should be thrown out of the country for being the most unpatriotic American. Well we will see what Obama will do about the economy.....ha ha ha...

[ofbbg]

"Global warming" is perhaps the biggest global fraud ever perpetrated and AlGore its biggest hustler. Aside from the fact that the average global temperature has been decreasing over the last 10 years, some nagging questiions still need answering: 1. What is the planets average temperature? When was the earth at that average - 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, 30,000 years ago? 2. Who is going to set our target for the earths average temp? The UN? A select group of mediocre "scientists" with faulty data and a political agenda? The common man? Who? 3. When we achieve this established temp, how will we maintain it? If it starts to cool (as it has countless times over the millenia), what do we do to stop it? Might we have to inject CO2 to stop the cooling? 4. Isn't it possible that "global warming" might have a beneficial effect, such as providing arid areas with regular rainfall enabling greater food production? There are others to be answered.as well, but getting intelligent answers to these 4 would do a great deal to ease my mind about creating a HUGE beauracracy around "cap and trade" when such beaucracies have proven over and over again to be tha least effective way to manage anything!
Just a thought.

[Necron99]

How's the air conditoning there at EXXON headquarters?

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Nice try. Next you'll say we're NeoCon warmongers and Holocaust Deniers on top of everything else, eh?

I was an environmentalist before it was cool. I drive a hybrid, I grow my own food, I walk to the store instead of driving. My carbon "footprint" is small. I'm already doing all the "right" things by politically correct Green standards, and I don't need JUNK SCIENCE and a new TAX to keep doing them.

"Global Warming" may just turn out to be a bigger corporatist scam than the Neo-Con led bogus War on Terror. A new faction of globalists may have won the war on public opinion (example: Obamamania), but they're STILL CORPORATISTS looking for YOU to pay for what they ought to be financing themselves.

[joebhed]

Not exactly.

[DavidJames]

ofbbg,

The wikipedia has a great overview of global warming. There is no hustle there!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Regarding mediocre scientists. Science works for everyone.

[oncethere]

All I know is that it has been in the mid 90's the last few days in the Midwestern town where I live. This country, this planet, will not survive four more years of a Republican. And yet I hear Rush Limbaugh say, "Global warming is the biggest hoax in history." This is not funny anymore.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

You're right: The global warming hoax is NOT funny.

[GHO]

Sorry Congressman, but the best thing Congress can do for its constituents is get out of the way. Renewable, clean energy is ALREADY available in the forms of nuclear and wind power, but it's Congress, not the evil "big oil" or anyone else who keeps getting in the way.
Europe has nearly 200 nuke plants with more on the way. Meanwhile, the US has only 100 and has not started up a new since 1996. Wind power, also popular throughout Europe, can't get a foothold here in the US because every wind farm proposal is met with congressional obstruction.
No, instead you mandate and subsidize ethanol only to learn that its inefficient and contributes to food shortages, rising food prices, and deforestation. Wonderful.
And isn't it Congress that wants to sue OPEC for not increasing production? How much more hypocritical can we be than to sue OPEC for not increasing production when WE REFUSE TO DO SO OURSELVES?? We won't drill, we won't build new refineries, but we'll send our President, the so-called leader of the free world, to the Saudis, hat in hand, to beg for more oil. How embarrassing.
So what is Congress' answer - wealth redistribution. Call it what you want, cap & trade, iCap, whatever, it's redistribution plain and simple as you yourself say in talking about giving the funds to low income families to cover increased energy costs. Speaking of which - is now really the time for "increases in energy costs"? They're not high

[Bladernr1001]

Excellent post. Many on this site are critical of our free market system and want to push it more towards a central command type system. But this whole debacle with energy is yet another example of the failure of this kind of approach....though you will not see anyone admit it here.

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Straussian authoritarianism sucks. Top-Down central command structures are going the way of the dinosaur, so you'd think the "forward thinkers" at the Club of Rome and Bilderberg Group (who met in Chantilly this week) would understand this.

The only way to shut down these cheap-azz corporatists is to snap our wallets shut, which should be easy to do since our wallets largely empty anyway. Big Business, via our government (aka corporatism) is looking to squeeze blood from our turnips. Don't let them!

[joebhed]

Excuse me, did you say nuclear energy was renewable?
Ummmmm.... , by that, did you mean that once you start that radiation-producing nuclear fission, it is going to go on fissioning forever?
That really doesn't fit any definition of renewable energy that I have ever seen?
Is it like because the nuclear waste will NEVER go away, and we will have to keep building and managing facilities FOREVR, is that what makes it renewable?
So, it's not a renewable-energy producer.
It's more of a renewable energy-consumer.
It keeps renewing its need for energy consumption.
So, it's a renewable "needer" of energy.
I am not sure where that fits into our energy policy.
If we had one.