From ROSALIND PETERSON
1) The United States is committed to implement qualified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 to be submitted to the United Nations by January 31, 2010.
2) The U.S. Senate will be under the gun to pass their Cap & Trade, Energy & Jobs bill (S1733 or another similar bill) prior to January 31, 2010 to be in compliance with this Accord.
3) The current bill before the U.S. Senate will not reduce any pollution emissions until 2017 and then only a 17% reduction of 2005 identified greenhouse gas emissions (water vapor, a greenhouse gas, is excluded from this legislation). Thus, no action is planned by the Copenhagen Accord or the United States in reducing any greenhouse gases until 2017 or 2020.
4) The EPA, without any passage of legislation and under authority from a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, is now on track to immediately begin to reduce all pollution from every greenhouse gas source. Without interference from Congress or the White House compliance with the Accord will begin in 2010, and could put the United States in the lead in taking immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. The EPA model could set and example for the entire world and the United States would be immediately demonstrating its commitment to protecting the environment.
5) The Accord is weak in that no implementation of greenhouse gas reductions is to take place until 2020.
6) The Accord will use various approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions “…including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions…” This means that (S1733) a Cap & Trade System will be used in lieu of actual immediate reductions to allow polluters to “Buy & Sell the “Right to Pollute” between 2010 and 2017 or 2020. No pollution reduction will take place until either of these target dates.
7) This long term wait for any small reduction in greenhouse gases means that the threat is not considered that important by the proponents of this Accord or the United States. What is more important is establishing a “Cap & Trade money market scheme to enrich private corporations, banks, and the stock market.
8) The Accord does not call for an assessment of implementation until 2015, another indication that the reduction in greenhouse gases is not considered a top priority for immediate reductions for greenhouse gases to be implemented.
9) The Accord plans to fund “adaption and mitigation” through the establishment of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. The United States has agreed (U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton Deal), to contribute to this fund with U.S. Taxpayer funds.
10) To accomplish this goal a “carbon tax” on U.S. citizens to fund this agreement will be included in the updated Cap & Trade Bill to be brought before Congress in January 2010. Thus, the funds raised from any taxes won’t go to alternative energy funding, be refunded to U.S. taxpayers, or finance new jobs in the United States. The entire substantial tax paid will go to the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund and to pay for the printing of money in the form of free “offsets” which will be given to polluters in the United States so that they can continue to pollute at current levels until 2017 or 2020. (This will benefit banks, the stock market, and carbon trading venture capitalists-the only jobs that will be created with the scheme.)
11) Senator Kerry, on his Website, December 2009, states: “…A significant gap exists “between the international climate funds committed in the President’s FY10 budget (approximately $1.2 billion) and the expected revenue that will be generated from a cap-and-trade program beginning in 2012…The United States Congress has already indicated its support for such a package. The House of Representatives dedicated 7% of the allowance value from a cap and trade system to international efforts to promote clean energy technologies, reduce emissions from deforestation, and address adaptation needs. The legislation moving through the Senate includes similar levels of funding for these priorities.
12) Senator Kerry is removing the wording Cap & Trade and replacing it with Pollution Reduction Investment (PRI). This is defined in part by Senator Kerry: “…PRI creates powerful incentives to spark new investment(s)… Every voucher the government issues will allow us to invest in the energy future of the country without adding to the deficit…Instead of using a ‘command and control’ model where government tells individual companies where and how to reduce pollution (EPA current model and mandated by U.S. Supreme Court Decision), PRI is designed to let the private sector seek out the most cost-effective ways to meet our pollution reduction goals. Major polluters will be required to turn in one ‘carbon credit’, essentially a voucher for the right to pollute one ton of carbon…” Note that under S1733 free vouchers will also be printed and our tree credits can be used as carbon offsets to be bought and sold on a carbon market to allow polluter to buy and sell the right to pollute.
Kerry States: “…These vouchers can be bought or sold, giving companies the flexibility in how they reduce pollution. Those that can’t quickly or affordable do so can buy vouchers instead. Other companies better able to cut pollution can sell their vouchers to those who need them…” This allows the corporations to buy and sell the right to pollute and profit as well especially when some of the offsets or credits are given to these companies at no cost.
13) The only offset for the taxpayer will be a carbon tax. The money to be transferred to the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund under the Copenhagen Accord. This will mean that corporations can buy and sell the right to pollute for the next 17-20 years with no pollution reductions required until 2017, all to be funded by the “carbon tax”. READ THE CAP & TRADE ENERGY BILLS (4 VERSIONS) PASSED BY THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 2009, AND THE NEW ONE (1733) INTRODUCED BY SENATOR BARBARA BOXER IN 2009. S1733 or a similar bill will be brought before the U.S. Senate in January 2010, to implement this tax and to promote the buying and selling of the right to pollute. In addition, a carbon tax will be necessary to fund the Copenhagen Accord.
14) Once passed funds will be transferred to the Copenhagen Green Fund where the United States and other countries are directed to use “markets” to promote mitigation actions. No pollution reductions will occur in the United States as corporations will have a free pass to continue to pollute. And there will be no funding left to fund alternatives energy, immediately reduce pollution here in the United States.
15) If this bill passes the EPA will lose its mandate to immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. And the end result will be the gutting of our U.S. Clean Air and Water Acts.
A more sensible approach is to let the EPA regulate polluters, reduce pollution, and protect our Clean Water and Air Acts to protect public health and help with climate issues. This will happen with no congressional action because this is mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court. This approach will demonstrate to the entire world that the United States is taking immediate action to reduce greenhouse gases and would also be an example to other nations in what they can do to reduce pollution in their own countries. And it shows that there is concern about the environment and climate that is a priority in this country.
See also How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room→
Thanks to Janie