Page 36: High Efficiency Gas Turbine Research. They are shooting for 65% combined cycle efficiency. Not a bad idea, but not exactly something private industry is neglecting. I checked carefully and as far as I can tell they didn't repeal the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Page 42: Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to do a study on thorium fueled nuclear reactors.
Page 64:; there is "Sec 27. Clean Energy Manufacturing Revolving Loan Fund Program". It doesn't say anything about nuclear power, but if you go down to paragraph (J) on page 65 it looks like Secretary Chu could apply it to nuclear power if he wants to.
Page 114: Looks like the feds will help you if you buy a house closer to work (Location-Efficient Mortgages).
Page 133: And help with the landscaping. I'm now totally confused about when you are supposed to protect trees and when you supposed to cut them down and burn them for renewable biomass. Since they use the term "indigenous trees", I assume a Dutch Elm is renewable toast.
Page 170: Sec. 299F. GAO Reports on Availability of Affordable Mortgages. I don't know what this is doing in this bill. Maybe it was a cut and paste error.
Page 210: It looks like Subtitle A is trying to keep manufacturing from moving offshore to countries that don't punish CO2 output. It looks like if you are competing with a foreign company that doesn't have to pay carbon offsets, then you can get some sort of rebate on the offsets. The government offsets the offsets so to speak. It seems to me that it would be cheaper to not make you buy the offset in the first place.
Page 260: Changes to Earned Income Credit. I don't know how they are going to figure out which households have experienced a reduction in purchasing power because of the bill and why doesn't that apply to people with kids also?
Page 268: Carbon offsets for agriculture are administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, not the EPA. This has upset some environmental groups.
Page 271: Ocean fertilization doesn't count as biological sequestration.
Page 276: Insert your own joke about manure management.
Page 289: Section 506 Verification of Offset Practices. When you think about it, The compliance and enforcement costs for carbon offsets are going to cost more than $176 per household. The time filling out the paperwork, the time reviewing the paperwork, the field inspectors to check that what people are doing matches the paperwork. This makes the IRS look simple by comparison.
Page 42: Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to do a study on thorium fueled nuclear reactors.
Page 64:; there is "Sec 27. Clean Energy Manufacturing Revolving Loan Fund Program". It doesn't say anything about nuclear power, but if you go down to paragraph (J) on page 65 it looks like Secretary Chu could apply it to nuclear power if he wants to.
Page 114: Looks like the feds will help you if you buy a house closer to work (Location-Efficient Mortgages).
Page 133: And help with the landscaping. I'm now totally confused about when you are supposed to protect trees and when you supposed to cut them down and burn them for renewable biomass. Since they use the term "indigenous trees", I assume a Dutch Elm is renewable toast.
Page 170: Sec. 299F. GAO Reports on Availability of Affordable Mortgages. I don't know what this is doing in this bill. Maybe it was a cut and paste error.
Page 210: It looks like Subtitle A is trying to keep manufacturing from moving offshore to countries that don't punish CO2 output. It looks like if you are competing with a foreign company that doesn't have to pay carbon offsets, then you can get some sort of rebate on the offsets. The government offsets the offsets so to speak. It seems to me that it would be cheaper to not make you buy the offset in the first place.
Page 260: Changes to Earned Income Credit. I don't know how they are going to figure out which households have experienced a reduction in purchasing power because of the bill and why doesn't that apply to people with kids also?
Page 268: Carbon offsets for agriculture are administered by the Secretary of Agriculture, not the EPA. This has upset some environmental groups.
Page 271: Ocean fertilization doesn't count as biological sequestration.
Page 276: Insert your own joke about manure management.
Page 289: Section 506 Verification of Offset Practices. When you think about it, The compliance and enforcement costs for carbon offsets are going to cost more than $176 per household. The time filling out the paperwork, the time reviewing the paperwork, the field inspectors to check that what people are doing matches the paperwork. This makes the IRS look simple by comparison.
References:
Amendment Text:
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/SpecialRules/hr2998/waxman1_hr2998_111.pdf
Text of original bill:
http://www.eenews.net/public/25/11457/features/documents/2009/06/23/document_daily_03.pdf
1 comments:
Thank you for posting this satire of the Waxman-Markey bill. Let's hope that by the time the Senate gets around to working on this bill, there will have been time for some serious analysis, and that saner heads will prevail.
Post a Comment