is still a raw deal. The Wall Street Journal does a great job of breaking down what's really going on behind the smoke and mirrors of the new "American Power Act."

Myth #1: This isn't cap and trade.

Except that it is. 

Jim Lucier, an investment analyst at Capital Alpha Partners, calls it the Mr. Potato Head bill. The cosmetic features can be rearranged, but it's still a Mr. Potato Head. This is still cap and tax—except with new and larger subsidies, outright corporate bribes, and the rest of the political palm-greasing that Democrats hope can still lead to a Rose Garden ceremony this year.

Myth #2: There's no gas tax.

Except for the gas tax.

Producers and importers of gasoline and jet fuel, for example, would be cordoned off from the wider carbon-permit auctions and instead buy separate, nontradable allowances pegged to the fixed price at which the auction closes. The technical term for this is a "linked fee," but consumers are unlikely to observe the distinction when pump prices rise under this de facto gas tax.

"There is no gas tax, never was a gas tax, will not be a gas tax, I don't know where that came from, but it is just wrong. Period," Mr. Kerry rumbled at a press conference in late April. "There is not even a linked fee, there is not a tax, there is nothing similar." No, except for the gas tax that dare not speak its name.

Myth #3: Big Business is standing in the way of these climate initiatives.

Quite the contrary, big business is lining up behind the cap and trade bill because they've been able to carve out special, taxpayer funded favors.  And besides, what corporation wouldn't sign on to anything that makes it the law to buy their expensive new products or carbon offsets? 

Big business is on board for the subsidies, and even the Chamber of Commerce had kind words for this "work in progress." The bill landed with endorsements from such luminaries as John Doerr, a Kleiner Perkins venture capitalist and Al Gore's business partner; John Rowe, the CEO of the nuclear utility Exelon; and Jeff Immelt, CEO of General Electric. Every business or interest that could afford a half-competent lobbyist stands to benefit, at least until cap and tax is in place and environmentalists crack down over time.

Myth #4: No one will get hurt.

The left likes to herald this sort of legislation as a new dawn for green technology and the bazillions of magical jobs that will come with it. I'd like to know if those new jobs will be exactly equal to all those that are lost as businesses go overseas and small businesses crumple under the new massive costs to do business. 

Energy politics splits on geographic more than partisan lines, and the folks in the hinterlands who rely on coal-fired power and heavy manufacturing will get socked the hardest.

Myth #5:  It's worth it! 

This will surely clean up the environment, right?   Except it won't. 

Oh, and since America is not a planet, Kerry-Lieberman will have little to no effect on global CO2 concentrations as the Chinese, Indian and Brazilian economies expand. But the bill would impose carbon tariffs on countries that don't adopt similar restrictions, likely leading to a trade war.

Myth #6: This monster won't pass.

Think there's no political will to take on such controversial measure with elections just around the corner?  Think again. 

The Beltway wisdom says this combination of corporate welfare and economic destruction has little chance to pass this year, but don't be so sure. The left and Mr. Obama know their supermajorities are about to vanish, and they are ideologically willful enough to make one more effort to jam this through the Senate.

And besides, with so many pending retirements, it's hard to think of what could reign in many legislators who won't have to suffer the electoral consequences of their votes.  They'll probably get plumb jobs on the corporate boards they got special favors for.

Take Action.

It looks like the long-awaited Murkowski Resolution of Disapproval will be up for vote shortly.  Many readers have taken action to urge their Senators to cosponsor the bill (if you haven't, do so here) and these efforts have helped bring the bipartisan support up to 41 cosponsors. 

The Murkowski Resolution is an important measure to stop a backdoor cap and trade plan from being implemented by the EPA.  The EPA would love nothing more than to have free-reign in regulating CO2.  That means a host of new regulations heaping new costs on energy and the price of doing business in the United States.  Worst of all, this would all be done by un-elected bureacrats who are not accountable to taxpayers and would have little to restrain their decisions.

The Murkowski Resolution would stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, saving jobs and money during these tough economic times.

Here is a list of Senators who need to hear from you today - please call and urge them to vote "Yes" on the Murkowski Resolution.  You can find a list of talking points here.

Senator Webb (D-VA): 804-771-2221

Senator Brown (R-MA): 617-565-3170

Senator Bayh (D-IN): 317-554-0750

Senator Casey (D-PA): 717-231-7540

Senator Specter (D-PA): 717-782-3951

Senator Conrad (D-ND): 701-258-4648

Senator Dorgan (D-ND): 701-250-4618

Senator Tester (D-MT): (406) 252-0550

Senator Baucus (D-MT): 406-657-6790

Senator Pryor (D-AR): 501-324-6336

Senator Brown (D-OH): 614-469-2083

Senator Johnson (D-SD): 605-332-8896

Senator Rockefeller (D-WV): 304-347-5372

Senator Byrd (D-WV): 304-342-5855

Senator McCaskill (D-MO): 314-367-1364

Senator Bennet (D-CO): 303-455-7600

Senator Begich (D-AK): 907-271-5915

Senator Collins (R-ME): 207-784-6969

Senator Snowe (R-ME): 207-786-2451

Additional information about some myths surrounding this important resolution can be found here.  And FreedomWorks has also posted commentary about the Murkowski Resolution here.

As we've blogged before, there is a movement underfoot in California to help push back the harmful state cap and trade scheme during tough economic times.  This week, those folks got one step closer to seeing their proposed suspension on the ballot this November.

The San Jose Mercury News reports:

Setting up what is expected to be a multimillion-dollar political battle between oil companies and Silicon Valley tech leaders, opponents of California's landmark global warming law turned in about 800,000 signatures Monday for a November ballot measure to suspend the law.

Opponents of the law, known as AB 32, say it will cost California jobs during a bad economy by increasing the price for fuels such as gasoline, and electricity bills.

...

Supporters of the ballot measure need 433,931 valid voter signatures to qualify the initiative.

"AB 32 is going to significantly exacerbate our energy bills," said James Duran, chairman of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Silicon Valley. He said he is concerned that higher gasolinebills would most harm Latino residents, who tend to have lower incomes than the state as a whole.

It's striking that the group got almost 400,000 more signatures than required - of course any campaign wants to go over in case there are invalid signatures, but it's nice to hope that this kind of enthusiasm to kill a bad bill bodes will for November.

Those who oppose the ballot measure, and support the cap and trade plan, say that the legislation has brought in green jobs and spurs renewable energy industries by increasing demand.  But when those costs are high, unemployment is high, and extra cash is running low all around, who can afford such a plan?

Letting the market drive demand wil make the cost of all kinds of energy lower and truly spur the green tech industry to create affordable alternatives rather than being propped up by the government.

California's ongoing budget crisis and high unemployment, as industry flees the tax-happy state, presents a clear example of exactly what not to do, if the goal is in fact a successful state and thriving economy.  (If California has another goal in mind involving shuttered businesses, increased forclosures, and some kind of Detroitian dystopia in mind then by all means proceed and good luck with that.)

Anita Mangels, a spokeswoman for the campaign to suspend California's cap and trade has the last word in the article and deserves it here as well in reference to Governor Schwarzenegger's accusations that the effort is the "work of greedy oil companies who want to keep polluting our state and making profits" (which gives rise to thought that if the Governor is sure profits are a bad thing then it's pretty easy to see how California got where it is):

"The companies he is slandering are companies that, regardless of where they are headquartered, employ thousands of Californians and pay millions of dollars in taxes," she said. "They are fighting to protect those jobs."

Writing at FoxNews.com, Deneen and Tom Borelli of the National Center for Public Policy Research chalk up the current cap and trade will-they-or-won't-they to another win for the tea party folks.  Last week, we wrote about the intense pressure Sen. Lindsey Graham of "American Power Grab" fame is facing over his support of cap and trade - and his subsquent withdrawal from the energy bill triumverate.

In this latest article, the Borelli's look at the other side of the equation: the Reid Re-election Dilemma:

Democrats, including many long-term incumbents such as Reid, are facing tough re-election battles in November and they desperately need an issue to rally voters.

By leading with immigration, Reid is trying to appeal to Nevada’s important Hispanic voter bloc to improve his re-election bid.

Conversely, cap-and-trade, with its significant negative economic impact, will do little to boost Reid’s prospects. Pressing for cap-and-trade would give Reid’s opponents ample intellectual ammunition to use against the Senator during the upcoming campaign. Nevada’s economy is still reeling from the  housing bubble's burst and the promises of higher energy prices from the climate bill will only delay the state’s recovery.

Be sure to read the whole thing here.

The Borelli's concede that Reid is still a wild card who could flip-flop back to cap and trade - and there maybe some campaign fund silver (and personal check) lining in doing so:

Of course, it’s possible that Reid will abandon immigration and flip back to promote Obama’s cap-and-trade policy, which has the backing of big businesses such as General Electric, Duke Energy and Exelon.

Either way, the tea party has Reid coming and going.  Take Action today and help keep up the pressure and cap and trade off the table.

Two days ago the LA Times reported that Al Gore has picked up a pricey new Italian-style villa with "ocean view, fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms" all for a mere $8,875,000. 

It always seems a little surprising that this self-styled eco-warrior isn't living in a tree with the rest of his disciples, but it shouldn't be all that shocking because he can definitely spare the change he shelled out for the Montecito-area cottage.

Of course the most famous public figure with deep financial ties to the climate change money machine is Al Gore. During the last ten years, he has increased his personal fortune a hundredfold, from "between $1 million and $2 milion" (from his 2000 Presidential candidacy disclosures) to over $100 million in 2007. Gore and former Goldman Sachs executive David Blood founded Generation Investment Management (GIM), a venture capital firm that invests in "green" businesses. GIM is a member of the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX) which is the commodity trading market created to facilitate the sale of carbon credits.

Money machine? The blog quoted above points to a good introduction:

If you accept that CO2 is the problem, then steps need to be taken to reduce CO2 emissions, which many developed countries have attempted using “cap and trade” schemes. In cap and trade, you use the law to require companies in developed countries to reduce their CO2 emissions, or to buy carbon offsets if they can’t.

Where do carbon offsets come from? Simply enough, some authority must certify that someone else has either reduced their CO2 output, or has agreed not to do something that would increase CO2 output they would otherwise have done. For every ton of CO2 you don’t emit, you get a certificate that you can sell on the carbon market to someone who needs permission — an indulgence — allowing them to emit a ton of CO2.

But what about the details? Who has the authority to certify? And how do you measure CO2 not emitted? The opportunities for graft are vast. There isn’t much that is easier than not building a facility that therefore doesn’t emit CO2. Convince an inspector that you really would have built that facility, or simply that you built a modern efficient plant where you might otherwise have built a dirty inefficient one, and you’re entitled to a credit.

Once you have the carbon credit you need to sell it, which means there must be a market — a role filled in part by the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX).

Glenn Beck does an excellent job of trying to unpack the growing carbon credit market/jungle below:

It's difficult to dismiss this as a lot of tinfoil hat ranting - people have been picking up on this in bits and pieces over a long time period now, even Rolling Stone did a piece on this last July!  The Washington Examiner also has more information on the Fannie Mae cap and trade connection here.

Thanks to the elaborate "cash web" Gore and his cohorts have put together, he can not only afford his new digs, he can afford the carbon offsets from such an elaborate, energy sucking abode.  Unless, of course, he can just give them to himself?  Perhaps for an early birthday present.

On the other hand, even if he did buy the offsets to counter the earth abuse the Montecito pad is committing, it probably wouldn't do much good.  The Christian Science Monitor has an indepth investigative report on the extreme no good at all and, in fact, extreme fraud some carbon offset outfits are accomplishing. 

An investigation by The Christian Science Monitor and the New England Center for Investigative Reporting has found that individuals and businesses who are feeding a $700 million global market in offsets are often buying vague promises instead of the reductions in greenhouse gases they expect.

They are buying into projects that are never completed, or paying for ones that would have been done anyhow, the investigation found. Their purchases are feeding middlemen and promoters seeking profits from green schemes that range from selling protection for existing trees to the promise of planting new ones that never thrive. In some cases, the offsets have consequences that their purchasers never foresaw, such as erecting windmills that force poor people off their farms.

Carbon offsets are the environmental equivalent of financial derivatives: complex, unregulated, unchecked and – in many cases – not worth their price.

And often, those who get the “green credits” thinking their own carbon emissions have been offset, are fooled.

As we've pointed out in the newly revamped Cap and Trade online war room, government wants us to have a lot of economic pain for what is clearly no ecological pay off. The entire system is barely afloat under the weight of fraud, back room deals, and the type of cronyism that would make Boss Tweed proud.  And for some reason we're supposed to believe that the government is some how more pure and will pull this off better? 

That's a big pill to swallow. 

It's good that the cap and trade gambit is being exposed, but the dots are purposefully hard to connect and the kind of serious attention that is required to bring this kind of information to the forefront of the public conscience is seriously lacking.  That's why it is easy for Kerrry, Graham, and Lieberman to get away with saying their new bill isn't cap and trade, but caps and all this other junk that people accept without questioning.  It's all very complex and shady - it would take serious unpacking to discern what is really going on and who is getting rich off the taxpayers - because someone always is. 

For all those reasons and more, it's essential that we take action now before the bill that was dead, then wasn't, comes back for more.

It's also essential that citizens stand up for themselves, do some serious investigating, and demand answers.  That's what the Tennesse Center for Policy Research did when they exposed that Al Gore's electricity bill was 20X the national average in 2007.  But don't worry, he can afford it.

This past Saturday two amazing things happened:

1. Over 100 grassroots activists from a wide coalition of groups across South Carolina braved some seriously nasty weather to pull off simultaneous protests outside each of Senator Graham's district offices against his support of cap and trade.

2. Sen. Graham withdrew his support of the new cap and trade bill he had teamed up with Senators Kerry and Lieberman to write.  Of course, Graham is avoiding the obvious (bills that raise energy costs and send jobs overseas tend to be kind of bad and a tad unpopular) and instead telling everyone who will listen that he's miffed because it looks like the Senate will be taking up a hastily constructed immigration package first and not the economic nightmare he's toiled on for months.  Graham still doesn't get it, but we'll take this monkey wrench in the cap and trade works either way.

It's hard to put these two things down to pure coincidence.  The determined folks of South Carolina who won't back down in their opposition to this terrible bill deserve our big thanks.

Despite the storms, there were groups at big as 35 in Rock Hill and 20 in Mount Pleasant.  Everyone reports that the coordinated protests garnered a lot of attention from passersby who honked their horns, and stopped to talk, learn more about the issue, and sign the No Cap and Trade Petition.  This is a great example of how you don't need a huge crowd to make a big difference and shed some much needed light on an important issue.

Mount Pleasant, SC

Columbia, SC

Florence, SC

Greenville, SC

Pictures from the rest of the state will posted as they become available.

Policy experts, lawmakers, businesses, and constituents from across the country have continued to express their well justified opposition to the idea of a government-run cap and trade system in the U.S. Currently, a new version of a cap and trade based bill is being considered. This new bill, in large part, unfortunately resembles the original Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill.

The underlying criticism is that cap and trade, simply put, is far too expensive; particularly during a time when our national debt, fiscal deficit, and unemployment levels are still climbing. In addition to the vast scientific uncertainty that characterizes cap and trade backed science, the widely disseminated consensus has been that cap and trade’s subsequent effects on our domestic economy would unequivocally cripple industry in the United States.

 Referring to proposed cap and trade legislation, Politico writes:

With millions of Americans out of work, the economy struggling and recovery in doubt, the last thing we should be doing is further burdening American families and businesses.

Politico then proceeds to say:

Legislation laden with job-killing regulations that does not produce cleaner, more efficient, American-made energy is not what Americans need or want.

Finally, Politico says:

Unfortunately, if the Senate legislation resembles the Waxman-Markey bill, that’s what they’ll get.

Although there are many advocates of alternative (perhaps renewable) energy resources and a green jobs market, many of these same advocates fail to realize that cap and trade is one of the least prudent ways of going about achieving the former and/or the latter. After all, economic models and data analyses have proven that cap and trade would be detrimental to both the producer and the consumer in both the short run, and the long run. You may be wondering: to what degree would cap and trade be detrimental to the producer and the consumer? The Heritage Foundation conducted a thorough study of the economic impact of Waxman-Markey sponsored cap and trade. Adjusted for inflation to 2009 dollars, these were their calculated findings:

Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.

This CDA analysis extends only to 2035, as this is the forecasting horizon for the macroeconomic model used to prepare these estimates. But it should be noted that the emissions reductions continue to tighten through 2050 and that model-based analysis by other groups whose models extend beyond 2035 shows increasing harm to the U.S. economy.

Further validating the severity of cap and trade’s grim economic projections, Politico reports:

A study of Waxman-Markey by the American Council for Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers found that it could translate into 2.4 million lost jobs and a cumulative gross domestic product loss as great as $3.1 trillion by 2030.

In an effort to put a finishing touch on their defense against cap and trade, Politico writes:

Waxman-Markey, or anything like it, is unnecessary, unwise and ill-advised.

Given what economists, policy experts, and energy scholars have emphatically revealed regarding the negative economic unintended consequences of cap and trade legislation, it baffles me to hear that there are still those out there who believe that cap and trade is necessary. Even more so, it baffles me to hear that there are still those who are not disenchanted by the widely proclaimed negative economic consequences of a cap and trade system in the U.S. Why should U.S. lawmakers rush to pass a multi-trillion dollar bill that will single handedly change the course of production in the U.S. for the worse? Also, given what we know about the recent IPCC global warming data scandal, why would such a drastic economic measure still be considered necessary? Ultimately, cap and trade is an awful legislative proposal. It threatens not only our prospects for economic growth and productivity, but also our economic liberties as energy consuming households. These are just some things to consider when considering the idea of a cap and trade system in the United States.