Cap And Trade

[brvheart 1,752]

the republican viewpoint is almost always right in regards to economics. this is a terrible plan. but isnt it interesting that the same republicans who rightly advocate freedom and individual rights in economics, like BalloonMan and Braveheart, turn their backs on freedom and individual rights when it comes to morals? isnt it funny that they revert to force by way of religious governmental action on that issue?the democrats are the opposite. here they want to force their religion (environmentalism) and socialism on economics. but when it comes to morals they are all about freedom and individual rights. they both agree, the initiation of force should be used. they are both wrong. the second option is freedom from force, in all regards. both sides of this argument need to see where they fail. you have to take democrats on morals and science, and republicans on economics.

WTF are you talking about, Plus One? I'm about as libertarian as they come on the conservative side of things. Please tell me what freedoms I'm turning my back on?

jesus tap dancing christ, that was printed on the 26th. I regularly look at cnn and yahoo news. how am I hearing about this on a freaking poker forum??

It was probably on Rush. Ask BG.

I gotta say, if I had to pick the person most likely to be correct on global warming, my money is on the career scientist, as opposed to the accountant and IT nerd. but that's just me... however I am still squarely on the fence with cap'n trade.

seriously?

[akoff 0]

But we're not talking about a few losses at a few oil companies, we are talking about tens of thousands of jobs shipped overseas for years to come, and not just in the oil industry, but in industries that use oil.And we're not talking about reducing CO2 -- there is no economic model by which replacing cheap, relatively clean oil with dirty polluting oil from overseas can reduce CO2. It's like Obama saying "we must reduce worldwide child prostitution, therefore, all people who attempt to use a child prostitute will be sent to live in the Thailand red light district". Even if the bill did as it's proponents claim (a claim that has no scientific or economic support), it would still only reduce the total atmospheric CO2 by fractions of a percent over the next 20 years -- not enough to make any meaningful difference to global warming by even the most generous models.Reality matters.So to sum up: we will lose tens of thousands of jobs during a recession for a program that, at best, will have neglible ecological impact but more likely will increase overall worldwide pollution, all the while causing a sudden increase in prices that will hit the poor the hardest. And people say libertarians lack compassion? Really? I think it would be difficult to create a less compassionate program than this one.

This is what Democrats do over and over....and yet the blind and bleeding hearts continue to vote for them. It is sad.

[JOhnWaters 0]

WTF are you talking about, Plus One? I'm about as libertarian as they come on the conservative side of things. Please tell me what freedoms I'm turning my back on?

you want to impose your religious morals on people. you want to stop scientific progress for the sake of your religion. like i wrote in my post. you pretend to be for freedom, but only when it suits you. if you believe the use of force is wrong, you have to apply it to all aspects of life, not just economics, and you have to know WHY the use of force is wrong (hint: its not because of the ten commandments). this is the downfall of libertarianism: its an incomplete, floating political philosophy. thats why you have everything from anarchists to religious slaves supporting it.

[JOhnWaters 0]

I gotta say, if I had to pick the person most likely to be correct on global warming, my money is on the career scientist, as opposed to the accountant and IT nerd. but that's just me...

flawed logic.

[Sal Paradise 57]

you want to impose your religious morals on people. you want to stop scientific progress for the sake of your religion. like i wrote in my post. you pretend to be for freedom, but only when it suits you. if you believe the use of force is wrong, you have to apply it to all aspects of life, not just economics, and you have to know WHY the use of force is wrong (hint: its not because of the ten commandments). this is the downfall of libertarianism: its an incomplete, floating political philosophy. thats why you have everything from anarchists to religious slaves supporting it.

yeah brvheart, stop trying to impose sharia law and shit.

[hblask 1]

I gotta say, if I had to pick the person most likely to be correct on global warming, my money is on the career scientist, as opposed to the accountant and IT nerd. but that's just me...

Well, this is a debate about economics and policy, not science -- now do you trust the accountant?In fact, both of our posts tacitly acknowledged that there may be a human contribution to global warming, I think. It's just that no models show that this bill produces any meaningful reduction, even under the best circumstances.And I realize I have no credibility, so I try to make up for it with volume, volume, volume.

[hblask 1]

you want to impose your religious morals on people. you want to stop scientific progress for the sake of your religion. like i wrote in my post. you pretend to be for freedom, but only when it suits you. if you believe the use of force is wrong, you have to apply it to all aspects of life, not just economics, and you have to know WHY the use of force is wrong (hint: its not because of the ten commandments). this is the downfall of libertarianism: its an incomplete, floating political philosophy. thats why you have everything from anarchists to religious slaves supporting it.

We've had a couple noobs here lately making snap judgements, and this one is way wrong. I have not seen brvheart attempting to impose religion on anyone by law. He is not afraid to defend his positions in a battle of opinions, but that doesn't take anyone's freedom. In fact, from what I can tell, his position on religion is as far from the statist position as you can get -- moral persuasion and discussion, and live the example as much as possible.Being an ardent defender of religion doesn't make you a hater of freedom. It's only when you want the government to help you make your case that you cross the line.Now, back to cap-and-trade.....

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Well, this is a debate about economics and policy, not science -- now do you trust the accountant?In fact, both of our posts tacitly acknowledged that there may be a human contribution to global warming, I think. It's just that no models show that this bill produces any meaningful reduction, even under the best circumstances.And I realize I have no credibility, so I try to make up for it with volume, volume, volume.

This.Obviously: I'm not a climatologistThere is manmade pollutionThat pollution is badGreener forms of energy are necessary, and I welcome them when they are viable.The points we are trying to make:As to the actual CO2 emissions this bill claims to curb, even with massive and drastic changes, the US could not have any noticeable impact on the worldwide greenhouse gas levels. The bill doesn't pretend to offer changes of that magnitude anyway.The bill, as we covered ad nauseum on the previous page, will very possibly have a net negative impact on environment and a hugely negative impact on the economy if you think on any level beyond "people who use or produce energy are bad". There are valid studies and models all across the spectrum as to how much impact humans can actually have on the earth in relation to carbon emissions. If you don't believe this issue is as much (or more) politics as science, please read the link above where the EPA scientists boss tells him his findings won't be presented because they don't fit with the platform the EPA would like to take.

[vbnautilus 48]

As to the actual CO2 emissions this bill claims to curb, even with massive and drastic changes, the US could not have any noticeable impact on the worldwide greenhouse gas levels.

The bill would reduce US emissions to 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. Please show how this has no effect on the global greenhouse gas levels. That claim seems necessarily false to me.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Before we get to that number, what percentage of the globally produced (naturally and manmade) CO2 does the US contribute? (hint: it's really really really small). A 41 year projection based on a what? The epa numbers which had 5 days for comment, and then dissenting opinions were ignored? That must be taking into account the ridiculous economic climate this will create and force the carbon producers to other parts of the world so they don't have to face the same regulations. If that's the case, I could probably say the number is halfway plausible.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

To LLY: You are a smart dude, like really really smart, how is this concept evading you so much?

Nothing's evading me. I wrote how I felt, and other people have countered. I read what they wrote, and hopefully they read what I wrote. And now I'm thinking about it.

[strategy 4]

seriously?

I haven't put in the time to read a word of this legislation. I can't really have an opinion, can I?

flawed logic.

seems to me that NC was (is) trying to say that any contributions by man are insignificant, whereas LLY seems to disagree. Again, I'm betting on the scientist if I have to place a wager. No offense to NC.

Well, this is a debate about economics and policy, not science -- now do you trust the accountant?In fact, both of our posts tacitly acknowledged that there may be a human contribution to global warming, I think. It's just that no models show that this bill produces any meaningful reduction, even under the best circumstances.And I realize I have no credibility, so I try to make up for it with volume, volume, volume.

like I said above, NC did make the claim that man's contribution is extremely insignificant, and LLY seems to think the opposite.you do have some credibility around here, believe it or not.

[vbnautilus 48]

Before we get to that number, what percentage of the globally produced (naturally and manmade) CO2 does the US contribute? (hint: it's really really really small).

About 22%¹. We are the largest producer of carbon emissions in the world. Hint: really really big.

A 41 year projection based on a what? The epa numbers which had 5 days for comment, and then dissenting opinions were ignored? That must be taking into account the ridiculous economic climate this will create and force the carbon producers to other parts of the world so they don't have to face the same regulations. If that's the case, I could probably say the number is halfway plausible.

Well in fact we have an international framework for regulating carbon, but we have been ignoring it. This bill brings us in line with the Kyoto protocol, the international agreement which we signed but did not comply with. The bill also incorporates international interactions by allowing international carbon trading. If you'd like to read and comment on the science in the EPA report, its here: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics...54_Analysis.pdf

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

I'm going to go ahead and clarify again. There is certainly room to reduce our emissions, it's just that this bill does not do that effectively, partly because you can't view the world and the US as the same. Some of the biggest producers of emissions will just move someplace without cap and trade. Yay, you've reduced US emissions and changed very little from a global standpoint. I would love to move to nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and whatever else people want to invent.

[Balloon guy 158]

Nothing's evading me. I wrote how I felt, and other people have countered. I read what they wrote, and hopefully they read what I wrote. And now I'm thinking about it.

That's the wimp way to decide things.Try my way, it is way more intense.I look at an issue, decide how I think based on knee jerk reaction, gut feeling, and whatever Rush thinks.Then I defend/attack till the death, never admitting I am wrong or even that I am ignorant of the subject.So far it's worked perfectly for me.I think my track record here proves my point

[vbnautilus 48]

I'm going to go ahead and clarify again. There is certainly room to reduce our emissions, it's just that this bill does not do that effectively, partly because you can't view the world and the US as the same. Some of the biggest producers of emissions will just move someplace without cap and trade. Yay, you've reduced US emissions and changed very little from a global standpoint. I would love to move to nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and whatever else people want to invent.

Not only is this a conjecture unsupported by any data, it's just total defeatism. We have to do what we can. The real issue with this bill as I see it is whether or not we think it is worth the cost. We absolutely have an opportunity to affect the global climate (as we have been doing so quite recklessly), the question is how much it is worth to us in short term economic losses.

[Balloon guy 158]

I haven't put in the time to read a word of this legislation. I can't really have an opinion, can I?seems to me that NC was (is) trying to say that any contributions by man are insignificant, whereas LLY seems to disagree. Again, I'm betting on the scientist if I have to place a wager. No offense to NC.like I said above, NC did make the claim that man's contribution is extremely insignificant, and LLY seems to think the opposite.you do have some credibility around here, believe it or not.

PPPFFFTTT219 Representatives voted to make it the law of the land without reading it, what makes you so high and mighty?????

[Balloon guy 158]

Not only is this a conjecture unsupported by any data, it's just total defeatism. We have to do what we can. The real issue with this bill as I see it is whether or not we think it is worth the cost. We absolutely have an opportunity to affect the global climate on 1/20th of the land mass of this world, while giving the other 19/20ths a free pass to pollute at higher levels without restrictions (as we have been doing so quite recklessly), the question is how much it is worth to us in short term economic losses.

fypIf this was about reducing polution I might see your point, it's not, it's about raising money for the government.

[CaneBrain 95]

I'm going to go ahead and clarify again. There is certainly room to reduce our emissions, it's just that this bill does not do that effectively, partly because you can't view the world and the US as the same. Some of the biggest producers of emissions will just move someplace without cap and trade. Yay, you've reduced US emissions and changed very little from a global standpoint. I would love to move to nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and whatever else people want to invent.

or maybe if the world's heaviest hitter (us) finally gets on board it will make it easier to pressure India and China to get on board. I am distrustful of conservative projections that say we can do little to nothing to affect Co2 emissions----about as distrustful as I am of liberal projections on how new green jobs will offset lost non-green jobs.One thing I think everyone agrees on.....this legislation is being pushed through too fast.BG, there is no free pass for the rest of the world as much of them already follow the Kyoto protocols. The problems are India and China and until we can get firmer commitments from them I think cap and trade is a negative.

[Balloon guy 158]

About 22%¹. We are the largest producer of carbon emissions in the world. Hint: really really big.

Yet water vapor represents 3x more greenhouse causing effects than the total of all carbon emmisions by humans.

[vbnautilus 48]

fypIf this was about reducing polution I might see your point, it's not, it's about raising money for the government.

We should do something bad because everyone else is doing it?

[vbnautilus 48]

Yet water vapor represents 3x more greenhouse causing effects than the total of all carbon emmisions by humans.

So you'd rather get rid of water?

[Balloon guy 158]

or maybe if the world's heaviest hitter (us) finally gets on board it will make it easier to pressure India and China to get on board. I am distrustful of conservative projections that say we can do little to nothing to affect Co2 emissions----about as distrustful as I am of liberal projections on how new green jobs will offset lost non-green jobs.One thing I think everyone agrees on.....this legislation is being pushed through too fast.BG, there is no free pass for the rest of the world as much of them already follow the Kyoto protocols. The problems are India and China and until we can get firmer commitments from them I think cap and trade is a negative.

Kyoto, isn't that the thing Clinton refused to sign also?Here's an interesting fact about Kyoto:

If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following.Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)Maldives, 252%.Sudan, 142%.China, 55%.Luxembourg, 43%Iran, 39%.Iceland, 29%.Norway, 24%.Russia, 16%.Italy, 16%.Finland, 15%.Mexico, 11%.Japan, 11%.Canada, 8.8%.

[Balloon guy 158]

So you'd rather get rid of water?

Only the water on golf courses.I lost 6 balls yesterday playing the Pete Dye at Mission hills. Of course there are 14 holes with water, 12 of which are on the left.But still...2 sleeves? That is ridiculousAnd nobody tell checky about this, cause he's brutal about my golf game.

[Balloon guy 158]

We should do something bad because everyone else is doing it?

No mom...