Cap And Trade

[Balloon guy 158]

Popular in Europe for years, only now becoming available in America.It's time once again to grant the government the right to control another huge area of your life, your energy usage.You say you own a business and want to make a widget? Well you better be able to make that widget for about 6 units of energy per month. What? you say you need 8 units? Well then you are going to need to buy the right to use that energy from another company.Where did these units come from? We made them up at the congressional level and will be making them available as we see fit.How much will be allotted to you? Depends how much your industry pays us during election cycles. Just like every other rule we make in congress, money seems to influence things more than anything else.So after buying these units you of course will need to recoup your extra expense. How you say? Raise your prices. That's right, the price of widgets will go up in order to justify the higher cost of doing business.Well then..WHO will really pay for these higher rates? The consumer. Also known as the American people, rich poor middle class, they all get to fork over their money to pay for the new tax we just created, all with the catchy sounding name: Cap and Trade.Oh and the bad news?Both Obama and McCain are for it.GG US economy.

[phlegm 6]

Thank God im not a twenty-something with 60 more years of life to get thru.

[showstopper24 0]

I studied environmental science at school and I remeber we had to study about cap and trade for CO₂ emissions. I guess its the same with units of energy, so here's what I remember. The companies that can afford to buy other companies' units of energy (or in CO₂) are the big companies. So what this does, is it gives the big companies more room to use more energy and it influences the future because these companies (the ones responsible for polluting) have control of the energy.

[phlegm 6]

Just had a random thought,could I create a business claiming I need 10 units, get offered 7 units, than do nothing cept sell off my 7 units?

[Mercury69 3]

Sounds like yet another great idea to keep the money funnelling into the pockets of a select few, yet make it look like they are evenly distributing the power base.

[Balloon guy 158]

Sounds like yet another great idea to keep the money funnelling into the pockets of a select few, yet make it look like they are evenly distributing the power base.

We probably disagree more than agree on politics, but I bet we both think at the end of the day; politicians will rob us all blind.

[GeneralGeeWhiz 0]

We probably disagree more than agree on politics, but I bet we both think at the end of the day; politicians will rob us all blind.

+100.

[Zach6668 513]

Thank God im not a twenty-something with 60 more years of life to get thru.

heh, jokes on you. I'm a 20-something, but I don't project to hit my 40th bday!

[Mercury69 3]

We probably disagree more than agree on politics, but I bet we both think at the end of the day; politicians will rob us all blind.

True fact, Mr. BG.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

....wait, you're saying that a government program is far from perfect? No, no, I can't possibly accept that.

[Balloon guy 158]

....wait, you're saying that a government program is far from perfect? No, no, I can't possibly accept that.

Says the man who's livelyhood depends on government grants

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Says the man who's livelyhood depends on government grants

.....touche...

[CobaltBlue 662]

BG, there's a certain amount of clean space and atmosphere, right? Why is partitioning that out so bad? It has been working fine in Europe.The system addresses environmental concerns by recognizing that we've been polluting the atmosphere at a untenable rate. People: "Hey, big companies...you might want to slow down with those CO2 emissions." Big companies: "Screw you." People: "No, seriously...this is affecting everyone...here, you can emit this much, but if you want to emit more than that, we're not going to stop you, but you're going to have to pay/trade for it."I mean, do you have a problem with regulations that stop companies from dumping mercury into rivers? I'd hope that you see the general well-being in banning that.For further reading on a solution:http://www.ecoverdance.com

[AmScray 355]

BG, there's a certain amount of clean space and atmosphere, right? Why is partitioning that out so bad? It has been working fine in Europe.

Because it's predicated on the classic leftist delusion that's at the root of most of their thinking..."If everybody would just (insert action here) the world would be a better place"The "if everybody" part is the root of the problem, libertarian concerns about allowing the government to tax the air aside.

[Potomophobia 17]

We probably disagree more than agree on politics, but I bet we both think at the end of the day; politicians will rob us all blind.

We have indeed disagreed on politics. But I will not take that bet, because I agree. They ARE robbing us all bind.

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, there's a certain amount of clean space and atmosphere, right? Why is partitioning that out so bad? It has been working fine in Europe.The system addresses environmental concerns by recognizing that we've been polluting the atmosphere at a untenable rate. People: "Hey, big companies...you might want to slow down with those CO2 emissions." Big companies: "Screw you." People: "No, seriously...this is affecting everyone...here, you can emit this much, but if you want to emit more than that, we're not going to stop you, but you're going to have to pay/trade for it."I mean, do you have a problem with regulations that stop companies from dumping mercury into rivers? I'd hope that you see the general well-being in banning that.For further reading on a solution:http://www.ecoverdance.com

The problem is letting government have control over more and more of our lives. And then using this control to dictate how we live and conduct business. Let's put it this way. Would you feel okay if George Bush was given complete control over the power lines in the whole US? How about Bill Clinton having complete control over television.Then why would you trust any no face politician with the air and amount of power your company is allowed to use? It's one thing to say, you can only pollute this much, it's another to say you can only produce this much.Cap and Trade is about the government setting arbitray benchmarks on energy usage then taxing companies for going over those marks. What's to stop a republican pres from setting those benchmarks really high for companies like oil or gun companies, or a democrat pres from setting really high levels for companies that donate money to Moveon.org?Pollution is the area that I am okay with government intrusion into the actions of companies, energy or supposed global warming nonsense is where I jump off the cattle car.

[garamond10pt 0]

Not sure what the BIG NEWS is. The government already regulates pollution. Cap and trade just means the government sets the same restrictions on an industry-wide scale, but allows the market to figure out how best to implement it. I mean, on some level it's actually a decrease in regulation because they don't care what the hell you do on a plant-by-plant level so long as you have the credits for it.Like, if I have a 15-year old plant that's going to cost me a ton to meet certain emission standards, it might be way cheaper under cap-and-trade just to buy credits from a plant that can cut emissions more efficiently. Really don't see how this isn't a win-win.

[AmScray 355]

Really don't see how this isn't a win-win.

Virtual certainty that you're an "employee" and not an employer who will have to foot the bill.That's usually the fundamental chasm of understanding that separates people on issues like this. Non entrepreneurial rabble have no problem with this stuff because it doesn't have any impact on their irrelevant lives, but it does satiate whatever idiotic 'perfect world' ideals they hold.Any philosophy that doesn't burden its supporters with "writing the check" in support of it but rather, places that onus on someone else (THE RICH! THE CORPORATIONS! THE (insert someone other than you here)!!!) is invalid and morally bankrupt.

[garamond10pt 0]

Virtual certainty that you're an "employee" and not an employer who will have to foot the bill.That's usually the fundamental chasm of understanding that separates people on issues like this. Non entrepreneurial rabble have no problem with this stuff because it doesn't have any impact on their irrelevant lives, but it does satiate whatever idiotic 'perfect world' ideals they hold.Any philosophy that doesn't burden its supporters with "writing the check" in support of it but rather, places that onus on someone else (THE RICH! THE CORPORATIONS! THE (insert someone other than you here)!!!) is invalid and morally bankrupt.

Ok, at this point, I'm pretty sure you have no idea what you're talking about. I mean, the companies and industries themselves generally endorse cap-and-trade over the alternaties.The point of Cap-and-trade is it's cheaper than the alternatives. Like, regardless if the underlying regulation is valid or not, cap-and-trade will generally be cheaper and a more efficient method of implementing that regulation. Railing against it just because you don't like environmental regulation is like saying you won't get EZ Pass because you don't like paying tolls.

[Balloon guy 158]

Not sure what the BIG NEWS is. The government already regulates pollution. Cap and trade just means the government sets the same restrictions on an industry-wide scale, but allows the market to figure out how best to implement it. I mean, on some level it's actually a decrease in regulation because they don't care what the hell you do on a plant-by-plant level so long as you have the credits for it.Like, if I have a 15-year old plant that's going to cost me a ton to meet certain emission standards, it might be way cheaper under cap-and-trade just to buy credits from a plant that can cut emissions more efficiently. Really don't see how this isn't a win-win.

The issue is being clouded by the pollution angle.This isn't a pollution bill, this is an energy bill.If you have the cleanest running widget plant in the world, but use more energy than a junior senator from Oregon decides you are allowed to use, then you have to pay a tax.Except of course you won't really pay the tax, you're customers do through higher prices.If all your customers are rich, then it's just a tax on the rich, but if any poor people use your products, then the government is taxing the poor.And here's a juicy bit of reality to sink your toothes (teeths) in:If they do this, then they (the congress) will become addicted to this income. And should all the companies in the country find new energy sources that meet all the requirements, then they will HAVE to lower the maximums to make sure the program keeps making money.The same thing that is happening in Colorado where the high gas prices have made people drive less and buy less gas, so the government in order to recoup their lower taxes raised on the sale of gasoline, are thinking of instituting a toll road on some existing roads. Or in California they are talking about raising the tax on gas.You let the government have a tiny piece of your money, you will never get it back. If you don't fight each and every tax every time they come up, you will eventually just work for them

[garamond10pt 0]

The issue is being clouded by the pollution angle.This isn't a pollution bill, this is an energy bill.

Obama:Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.McCain:Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is using the idea of global togetherness to promote “a cap-and-trade system” to battle climate change. He said “Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren.”It's pollution, not energy consumption.

[Balloon guy 158]

Obama:Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.McCain:Presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is using the idea of global togetherness to promote “a cap-and-trade system” to battle climate change. He said “Americans and Europeans need to get serious about substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years or we will hand over a much-diminished world to our grandchildren.”It's pollution, not energy consumption.

Smoke and mirrors.Wait till it's too late and I'll tell you I told you so

[CobaltBlue 662]

The problem is letting government have control over more and more of our lives. And then using this control to dictate how we live and conduct business. Let's put it this way. Would you feel okay if George Bush was given complete control over the power lines in the whole US? How about Bill Clinton having complete control over television.Then why would you trust any no face politician with the air and amount of power your company is allowed to use? It's one thing to say, you can only pollute this much, it's another to say you can only produce this much.Cap and Trade is about the government setting arbitray benchmarks on energy usage then taxing companies for going over those marks. What's to stop a republican pres from setting those benchmarks really high for companies like oil or gun companies, or a democrat pres from setting really high levels for companies that donate money to Moveon.org?Pollution is the area that I am okay with government intrusion into the actions of companies, energy or supposed global warming nonsense is where I jump off the cattle car.

For all of the rhetoric, this Republican administration has done a pretty terrible job about decreasing government control. And, when did I say that I support consolidation of power like that in the President? What's to stop a President from setting those specific benchmarks? Typically, the fact that legislative power resides in Congress.The cap-and-trade system is going to be highly debated and negotiated by a wide range of politicians that we elect. In an ideal world, they're carrying out the wishes of the people. People want to avoid the effects of global warming. In order to reverse that trend, CO2 reduction (limiting GHG's) is a proper approach. BG, why doesn't your widget company use solar or wind power or other clean alternatives for energy sources? This isn't an energy tax and that option proves it. Maybe they'd even produce enough where they could turn a profit by selling carbon credits into the market if we go the way of allocation. You keep saying this is bad for the companies and consumers, but this system is actually probably going to be rather good for the economy.

Virtual certainty that you're an "employee" and not an employer who will have to foot the bill.That's usually the fundamental chasm of understanding that separates people on issues like this. Non entrepreneurial rabble have no problem with this stuff because it doesn't have any impact on their irrelevant lives, but it does satiate whatever idiotic 'perfect world' ideals they hold.Any philosophy that doesn't burden its supporters with "writing the check" in support of it but rather, places that onus on someone else (THE RICH! THE CORPORATIONS! THE (insert someone other than you here)!!!) is invalid and morally bankrupt.

You'd be surprised at how many corporations are getting created with this system in mind and how quickly existing corporations are interested in coming along. The rich and corporations see the long-term and even short-term benefits.

[copernicus 0]

The cap-and-trade system is going to be highly debated and negotiated by a wide range of politicians that we elect. In an ideal world, they're carrying out the wishes of the people. People want to avoid the effects of global warming. In order to reverse that trend, CO2 reduction (limiting GHG's) is a proper approach. BG, why doesn't your widget company use solar or wind power or other clean alternatives for energy sources? This isn't an energy tax and that option proves it. Maybe they'd even produce enough where they could turn a profit by selling carbon credits into the market if we go the way of allocation. You keep saying this is bad for the companies and consumers, but this system is actually probably going to be rather good for the economy.You'd be surprised at how many corporations are getting created with this system in mind and how quickly existing corporations are interested in coming along. The rich and corporations see the long-term and even short-term benefits.

I admit to not having studied cap and trade in depth, but this sounds an awful lot like broken window fallacy to me. Real growth in an economy cannot be created by businesses who's only function is to buy/sell/administer something that doesnt in itself add to the economy. If its energy driven, rational companies will employ the most effiecient energy. If its a GW issue, there is insufficient evidence that anything companies do will infuence GW to the extent that its economical to change behaviors in ways that have signficant costs.And that "People want to avoid the effects of global warming" is meaningless if the "people" are unaware of the cost/benefits of "avoiding the effects".

[El Guapo 8]

For all of the rhetoric, this Republican administration has done a pretty terrible job about decreasing government control. And, when did I say that I support consolidation of power like that in the President? What's to stop a President from setting those specific benchmarks? Typically, the fact that legislative power resides in Congress.

No matter what side of the ball you are on, we can all agree this is true.

BG, why doesn't your widget company use solar or wind power or other clean alternatives for energy sources?

Now that is just ridiculous.1st. Depending on location some of these may not be an option.2nd. If they are an option the cost for setting something like this up depending on the scale and energy needs would most likely be cost prohibitive.3rd. We rely on 3rd parties to proved energy to us, we do not know what the source of that energy is, because it is usually a combination of methods.