The Washington Post, Editorial: "Waxman-Markey... is this the best we can hope for?...During the campaign, President Obama supported the cleanest variation of this mechanism: selling all emission allowances at auction. This week he abandoned that sensible stance with a full-throated endorsement of Waxman-Markey, which gives away 85 percent of the pollution credits in the first years of the program and provides many avenues potentially to evade compliance...we think it's too soon to settle for something that falls so far short of ideal." (6/26/09)

The Wall Street Journal, Editorial: "The Cap and Tax Fiction... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House... It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done... The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars... Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming... Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality." (6/26/09)

The Detroit News, Editorial: "Legislators need to reveal costs of cap-and-trade bill... This bill will break the budget of U.S. households. Electricity costs could rise more than 100 percent in the Midwest... Gasoline and diesel fuel prices could go up nearly an estimated $1 per gallon just from the effects of this bill, driving up the cost of any good that is delivered by truck or train -- meaning just about every consumer product, particularly food... Before passing such a life-changing bill, Congress should disclose its full costs to consumers. Families will bear the price of this legislation, and they should be informed of exactly what that price will be." (6/26/09)

The Intelligencer, Editorial: "Reject Costly ‘Cap and Trade'... Among those receiving breaks and concessions that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hopes will help pass the "cap and trade" bill are the nuclear power industry, agriculture interests, ethanol producers - even logging companies. Missing from the list are West Virginians and Ohioans who would suffer terribly from enactment of the bill... The bill has become a gigantic early Christmas present for many special interests. At the same time it is a potential disaster for tens of millions of Americans. Members of the House should stiffen their backbones, resist the enormous - and often dishonest - pressure being exerted against them by liberals such as Pelosi, and reject the "cap and trade" bill." (6/26/09)

New Jersey Trentonian, Editorial: "Loony legislation on climate change... If we accept Obama's (and Gore's) asserted "truth" that "the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear," how, then, are we supposed to respond to the 115 scientists - many of them PhDs deeply involved in climate research - who signed their names to a newspaper ad taking exception to the claim?... The purported solution - a "cap-and-trade" bill - is not likely to make more than a negligible change in global temperatures... You wouldn't notice a cooler climate, but you would notice changes elsewhere. Such as when you open your electric bill. Or pull up to the gas pump." (6/26/09)

San Francisco Examiner, Editorial: "The Obama-Waxman-Markey energy crisis... Regardless of the bill's length, however, it's highly unlikely that more than a handful of members will have actually read the bill before they vote. It's such eyes-wide-shut voting by Congress that allows such monstrosities as this to become law... the bill will sock it to every American who drives a car, has a monthly utility bill or buys essentials like food and clothing. Experts estimate the annual costs will approach $3,000 for every family within a few years... But not everybody will be losers. Politicians in Congress will have more tax dollars to spend and there will be thousands of new jobs for Washington, D.C., bureaucrats." (6/25/09)

Orange County Register, Editorial: "Climate change bill all pain, no gain... The 1,200-plus-page legislation is a Christmas tree of political favors to buy necessary votes... What is wrong with this bill? Almost too many things to count... the system would be a hidden tax on energy that would cost every American, including the middle class and lower-income people that President Barack Obama promised he would never tax... the bill has become a festival of rent-seeking, the economists' term for the search for privilege and gain through the political process. Some day people will look back on the process and compare it to the medieval practice of "bleeding" patients to cure their diseases." (6/25/09)

Peoria Journal Star, Editorial: "Risky cap-and-trade measure... there are problems with this CBO report, from its caveats to its focusing solely on the year 2020. Most of the heavy lifting comes after that. The Heritage Foundation did a more complete study and came up with a net loss for the average household 10 times the CBO's prediction in the short term. That's much closer to Great Britain's experience with carbon caps... the Midwest, with 85 percent of its electricity coming from coal, gets whacked... we can't support rushing an effort this major that flies so blind." (6/25/09)

Investor's Business Daily, Editorial: "‘Waxman-Markey: Man-Made Disaster... Not since a misguided piece of legislation imposed tariffs that turned a recession into a depression has there been a piece of legislation as bad as Waxman-Markey... Its centerpiece is a "cap and trade" provision that has been rightfully derided as "cap and tax." It is in fact a tax on energy everywhere it is consumed on everything it is used to make or provide. It is the largest tax increase in American history... Consumers would pay through the nose as electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, as President Obama once put it, by 90% adjusted for inflation... Hit hardest by all this would be the "95% of working families" Obama keeps mentioning as being protected from increased taxation." (6/25/09)

Charleston Daily Mail, Editorial: "Between a rock and a hard place... President Obama proposed a 700-page energy bill to encourage the development of new energy sources and discourage the use of coal over time by capping carbon emissions... These costs would be borne by customers through their utility bills... The war on coal, and the accompanying cap-and-trade mumbo-jumbo, would clobber West Virginia and West Virginians." (6/24/09)

Salem (Ohio) News, Editorial: "‘Cap and trade' is a disastrous bill... Congress could take a step backward in the re-industrialization of the United States if it approves the "cap and trade" carbon emissions bill in a vote that could come as early as this week...There is no way around seeing the potential impact on states such as Ohio, where about 86 percent of electricity is generated from coal-fired power plants, or West Virginia, where the number is about 97.5 percent. In other words, if a business uses electricity, it will have a new, higher cost of staying in operation with cap and trade. Those who can't meet the burden will close, adding to joblessness, economic distress and diminished communities." (6/24/09)

PA Sun Gazette, Editorial: "Cap and Trade Bill a scare proposition... It's called the American Clean Energy and Security Act. It's known as the Cap and Trade Bill. In reality, it's a huge tax increase that will stifle economic development and add to unemployment rolls... Punishing consumers, workers and businesses tied to the traditional energy sources with heavy taxation that will lead to price increases and unemployment is not innovative just because it has environmentally friendly underpinnings." (6/24/09)

Lewistown Sentinel, Editorial: "‘Cap and trade' is no-win legislation... It is possible that the so-called "cap and trade" bill will be approved when it comes to a vote in the House of Representatives. If that happens, it will be because some lawmakers did not vote in the best interests of their constituents... "Cap and trade" is intended to lessen emissions of "greenhouse gases." To do so, it would force many industries, including coal-fired power plants, to pay huge sums for emissions permits or to adapt their plants to meet new rules. Those costs would be passed on to consumers." (6/23/09)