By a vote of 219-212, a House bill that would establish "cap and trade" environmental standards passed. Although there was a lot of opposition to it voiced by conservative pundits, there was an aspect of cap and trade that wasn't discussed much, if at all, an aspect that no sensible thinking person could support.
The way cap and trade works is that companies would have set goals to reduce carbon emissions. If these companies were under these goals, they would have "credits" that they could sell to companies that failed to meet their goals. That way, the more environmentally responsible companies could make money while the larger companies can appear to be more environmentally responsible.
Now, did you notice there's something missing from the scenario I've just laid out? What's missing is an actual effort to reduce carbon emissions. Under cap and trade, there's no incentive for the big companies to reduce their emissions so long as there are smaller companies willing to sell any credits they're not using. The only way that large companies would be forced into a situation where they would have to cut carbon emissions would be...if the smaller companies went out of business.
That's something you didn't hear about in the debates over the bill, was it?
In the end, cap and trade is nothing more than applying Arthur Andersen's accounting practices to environmental protection. It will ultimately cost millions of dollars and not do anything worthwhile.
Not unlike the morons who voted for cap and trade.