Cap And Trade

[hblask 1]

I still don't understand. The purpose is to reduce emissions; I'm sure there will be a cost associated with that goal. Do supporters of the bill claim that it won't raise costs? I assume we have to pay in some way for cleaner air.

A few quick points:One part of the problem is that the government profits from this. What kind of incentives does that provide? Let's see, a hidden tax, paid mostly by the poor, that can be raised whenever we want by calling it "green". Yeah, there's an excellent idea. Couldn't we have the companies profit? Wouldn't that double our efforts at greenhouse gas reduction?Second, it's too much, too soon. I suppose this is just an argument about matter of degree, but they've really gone overboard this time. I've mentioned him before, but listen to Bjorn Lomborg -- there is such a thing as a price that is too high to pay, where the cost is more than the benefit, and this bill is not just a little past that point, but WAY past it.Third, we still have to compete internationally, and this bill basically makes us uncompetitive on the world market.

[strategy 4]

You can thank your buddy David Russo and the speculators who manipulate the price of oil for making this no longer as important of an issue.And most economist that I am referring to would disagree with you.I hope you are right and gas doesn't get that expensive, because you saying; "I told you so" is much better for this country than me saying it.

the saudis (and the middle east in general, really) at some point have to worry about innovation. they've actually come out and said on 60 minutes that it isn't in their best interests long-term to drive up the price of oil to the levels we saw last summer.

Third, we still have to compete internationally, and this bill basically makes us uncompetitive on the world market.

you really think this one idea could possibly outweigh all of the other terrible ideas the governments around the world are currently employing that make their firms less competitive? I don't.

[CaneBrain 95]

Third, we still have to compete internationally, and this bill basically makes us uncompetitive on the world market.

Don't our ideas of what constitutes a decent standard of living already makes us uncompetitive in the world market? Isn't that the 6 ton elephant in the room that no one ever acknowledges?

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

conservatives with brains (judging by 2001-2009 this rules out the Heritage Foundation) restrict their argument to the idea that we are giving up TOO MUCH cost for not enough return with this cap and trade bill. That is a valid argument at least.Conservatives who just say "this is an energy tax disguised as a climate change bill" can safely be ignored.

But both statements are true. The first is just reasoning for the second. Man made CO2 accounts for less than .2% of total greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. If, over the same 30 year horizon, we were magically able to cut human CO2 emissions by 10% (something this bill doesn't even pretend to be able to get close to since we won't be able to even touch developing asia in emissions over the related time horizon), we have reduced the human CO2 impact by .02% at a cost to the US of NINE TRILLION DOLLARS. This bill is barely tangentially related to climate change. Pretending otherwise is hysterically ignorant.

Don't our ideas of what constitutes a decent standard of living already makes us uncompetitive in the world market? Isn't that the 6 ton elephant in the room that no one ever acknowledges?

See if you can try any harder to change the topic. This wasn't quite obvious enough.

[vbnautilus 48]

I've mentioned him before, but listen to Bjorn Lomborg -- there is such a thing as a price that is too high to pay, where the cost is more than the benefit, and this bill is not just a little past that point, but WAY past it.

I just don't see why we should listen to a tennis player about climate change.

[CaneBrain 95]

But both statements are true. The first is just reasoning for the second. Man made CO2 accounts for less than .2% of total greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. If, over the same 30 year horizon, we were magically able to cut human CO2 emissions by 10% (something this bill doesn't even pretend to be able to get close to since we won't be able to even touch developing asia in emissions over the related time horizon), we have reduced the human CO2 impact by .02% at a cost to the US of NINE TRILLION DOLLARS. This bill is barely tangentially related to climate change. Pretending otherwise is hysterically ignorant.See if you can try any harder to change the topic. This wasn't quite obvious enough.

The 2nd statement is a waste of time and assumes all taxes are bad. It is useless without the first statement.I am not changing the topic; I am introducing a new topic. I am not on trial here so I dont need to change the topic. It's a valid point and one everyone just glosses over or says "stop changing the subject".

[Plus one 0]

I particularly like the part of the bill that mandates before you can sell your house a rerpresentative from greenpeace has to inspect your home and insure it meets evironmental standards before you can sell it. Only the rep from greenpeace referance is sort of inaccurate, however, who the hell do you think will get the job of enviromental inspector?

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

The 2nd statement is a waste of time and assumes all taxes are bad. It is useless without the first statement.I am not changing the topic; I am introducing a new topic. I am not on trial here so I dont need to change the topic. It's a valid point and one everyone just glosses over or says "stop changing the subject".

No, the second statement doesn't assume anything of the sort. Obviously taxes of some sort are required to fund a government. This kind of tax is horrible though. And by that, I mean a tax predicated on lies, sold as non-tax, that literally erases jobs (see the oil companies relocating overseas) and pushed through with no concept of the consequences.What exactly are you prosing with regard to "our" standard of living if you're not trying to change the subject?

[CaneBrain 95]

No, the second statement doesn't assume anything of the sort. Obviously taxes of some sort are required to fund a government. This kind of tax is horrible though. And by that, I mean a tax predicated on lies, sold as non-tax, that literally erases jobs (see the oil companies relocating overseas) and pushed through with no concept of the consequences.What exactly are you prosing with regard to "our" standard of living if you're not trying to change the subject?

I am just asking people about a new subject. This is an internet forum not a congressional referendum on cap and trade. You make it sound like I want to shift the focus from cap and trade.....but I dont and have no reason to do so. I just want to see people's thoughts on a different subject. Not sure why that is such a big deal.I think one of America's intractable problems is that our citizens idea of a livable standard is so much higher than much of the rest of the world's idea of a livable standard and that makes it harder to compete in the global marketplace. I wanted to see if people agreed, disagreed, etc. Obviously, cap and trade bothers you and you want to just discuss that. That's cool.

[Balloon guy 158]

I am just asking people about a new subject. This is an internet forum not a congressional referendum on cap and trade. You make it sound like I want to shift the focus from cap and trade.....but I dont and have no reason to do so. I just want to see people's thoughts on a different subject. Not sure why that is such a big deal.I think one of America's intractable problems is that our citizens idea of a livable standard is so much higher than much of the rest of the world's idea of a livable standard and that makes it harder to compete in the global marketplace. I wanted to see if people agreed, disagreed, etc. Obviously, cap and trade bothers you and you want to just discuss that. That's cool.

Our desire for a high standard of living is because the working man fought for his share of the pie from The Man. We got our share, and now live better than anyone in the world.The rich man will always do well in every country and almost every government.Only the poor man can rise himself up out of the mire of poverty to achieve a standard of living that is envied the world over.You may be okay with pushing the working man back down.We republicans are not.

[CaneBrain 95]

Our desire for a high standard of living is because the working man fought for his share of the pie from The Man. We got our share, and now live better than anyone in the world.The rich man will always do well in every country and almost every government.Only the poor man can rise himself up out of the mire of poverty to achieve a standard of living that is envied the world over.You may be okay with pushing the working man back down.We republicans are not.

Where did I say that I thought the answer was to make poor people accept a lower standard of living? I merely pointed out the problem; I certainly dont think the solution is to go backwards.I may have just responded seriously to a joke post.

[Balloon guy 158]

the saudis (and the middle east in general, really) at some point have to worry about innovation. they've actually come out and said on 60 minutes that it isn't in their best interests long-term to drive up the price of oil to the levels we saw last summer.

They also have publically stated they are against terrorism, while giving them multi-millions of dollars in 'protection' money for decades.Don't be so confident in what a fragile monarchy declares in public.

[hblask 1]

I think one of America's intractable problems is that our citizens idea of a livable standard is so much higher than much of the rest of the world's idea of a livable standard and that makes it harder to compete in the global marketplace. I wanted to see if people agreed, disagreed, etc.

I had to think about this for a while, but I think the answer is that yes, because we are rich and demand high standards of living, we are non-competitive in certain areas. (Of course, we are rich because we are competitive, so it's a feedback loop). The areas most affected are those in which manual labor is required and automation is more difficult or expensive.On the other hand, we compete quite well in areas that require high levels of technological competence.As this relates to cap-and-trade, what it means is that the jobs at the edges of our competence will move overseas. Companies have to weigh a lot of factors, such as the chance that the business environment here will return to favorable, the productivity in the new area, the cost of moving, the chance that the new country will become unfavorable, etc. The US does have a huge advantage over most countries in that we are stable and have rule of law and a tradition of strong property rights. Those can outweigh a lot of other costs.On the other hand, our corporate tax structure is not competitive, and Obama wants to make that even worse, and this tax-disguised-as-green that is cap and trade will also make it way worse.

[Balloon guy 158]

Where did I say that I thought the answer was to make poor people accept a lower standard of living? I merely pointed out the problem; I certainly dont think the solution is to go backwards.

Don't our ideas of what constitutes a decent standard of living already makes us uncompetitive in the world market? Isn't that the 6 ton elephant in the room that no one ever acknowledges?

So your stament above was not an opinion that the workingman in this cou ntry have slit their own throat?You should get a job as a laywer, you never know what you really mean when you say something.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

I am just asking people about a new subject. This is an internet forum not a congressional referendum on cap and trade. You make it sound like I want to shift the focus from cap and trade.....but I dont and have no reason to do so. I just want to see people's thoughts on a different subject. Not sure why that is such a big deal.I think one of America's intractable problems is that our citizens idea of a livable standard is so much higher than much of the rest of the world's idea of a livable standard and that makes it harder to compete in the global marketplace. I wanted to see if people agreed, disagreed, etc. Obviously, cap and trade bothers you and you want to just discuss that. That's cool.

Yeah, I kind of want to discuss cap and trade in the cap and trade thread. To your point though, I have been all over europe and don't consider my standard of living to be significantly better than that of a similarly educated professional in any other developed country I have visited, so I'd love to know specifically what you're referring to.Obviously it's higher than those of developing countries / those countries who have spent decades under dictators and socialist regimes, but I think that's a tick in the ol' W column for the US and canada.

[strategy's_touch 0]

They also have publically stated they are against terrorism, while giving them multi-millions of dollars in 'protection' money for decades.Don't be so confident in what a fragile monarchy declares in public.

while I would definitely agree that the world is full of people doing things counter to their own best interests, I think it is quite obvious that the Saudis do not want the world to be motivated to find a new source of fuel. I get your point, but this isn't something we had to hear from them. they cease to be relevant the moment something cheaper comes along.

[CaneBrain 95]

So your stament above was not an opinion that the workingman in this cou ntry have slit their own throat?You should get a job as a laywer, you never know what you really mean when you say something.

No, you are just assigning me a point. My point was that America, as a whole not just the working-man, is in many ways a victim of its own success and that emerging countries can exploit that. (See, I am making a similar point to the one you assigned me but it is framed differently than yours----conservatives are excellent at framing things to make people look uncaring, unpatriotic, etc.) As Naked Cowboy points out, that's mostly a good thing overall in grading our past (as an aside was it so hard to give your thoughts on a new issue? does it really matter this came up in the cap and trade thread? I can see why you scored where you did on the authoritarian scale). But we should recognize it as we move forward because it is an issue.Thank you Henry for the usual thoughtful response.

[Balloon guy 158]

while I would definitely agree that the world is full of people doing things counter to their own best interests, I think it is quite obvious that the Saudis do not want the world to be motivated to find a new source of fuel. I get your point, but this isn't something we had to hear from them. they cease to be relevant the moment something cheaper comes along.

Or when Israel starts slant drilling with ernest....ONE TIME

[Balloon guy 158]

No, you are just assigning me a point. My point was that America, as a whole not just the working-man, is in many ways a victim of its own success and that emerging countries can exploit that. (See, I am making a similar point to the one you assigned me but it is framed differently than yours----conservatives are excellent at framing things to make people look uncaring, unpatriotic, etc.) As Naked Cowboy points out, that's mostly a good thing overall in grading our past (as an aside was it so hard to give your thoughts on a new issue? does it really matter this came up in the cap and trade thread? I can see why you scored where you did on the authoritarian scale). But we should recognize it as we move forward because it is an issue.Thank you Henry for the usual thoughtful response.

Since they can already exploit it, why should our elected officials make it easier for them?And why would you bring this up in a discussion about the very bill that in facts makes countries that will have zero standards for emmisions have the opportunity to undercut our manufactering AND increase the pollution levels in the world because of a bill designed to 'reduce pollution/CO2 emmisions'?

[CaneBrain 95]

Since they can already exploit it, why should our elected officials make it easier for them?And why would you bring this up in a discussion about the very bill that in facts makes countries that will have zero standards for emmisions have the opportunity to undercut our manufactering AND increase the pollution levels in the world because of a bill designed to 'reduce pollution/CO2 emmisions'?

I brought it up because it popped into my head reading someone's post. I suppose it does have some relevance to the discussion though that was not my agenda.fwiw, I will restate that I think cap and trade is a bad plan.

[Balloon guy 158]

I brought it up because it popped into my head reading someone's post. I suppose it does have some relevance to the discussion though that was not my agenda.fwiw, I will restate that I think cap and trade is a bad plan.

But you think a black working man with a TV and a cell phone is worse?

[SAM_Hard8 50]

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- America’s biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.

[hblask 1]

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- America's biggest oil companies will probably cope with U.S. carbon legislation by closing fuel plants, cutting capital spending and increasing imports.

So it turns out this is a hidden tax that will cause massive unemployment? Boy, if only someone could've anticipated this, maybe it could've been prevented.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So it turns out this is a hidden tax that will cause massive unemployment? Boy, if only someone could've anticipated this, maybe it could've been prevented.

Oh, my turn, my turn:So it turns out that a bill aimed at reducing carbon emissions will end up hurting oil companies. Who could have possibly seen that one coming?

[hblask 1]

Oh, my turn, my turn:So it turns out that a bill aimed at reducing carbon emissions will end up hurting oil companies. Who could have possibly seen that one coming?

If it were only oil companies, then it would just a normal bad bill. It also hurts consumers, employees, and the economy. That pushes it into the really terrible category. I mean really, to cause that kind of economic destruction during a long recession? Who does Obama think he is, FDR?Oh yeah, right.