This has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with growing government, as fast and big as possible; capitalizing on a crisis for Christ's sake. It's criminal.
Chatter on the Hill says that lowlife Rahm Emanuel is calling up Dems on the fence and dropping the f bomb all over them.
Chicago thug politics. But frankly if the Right can't beat a bunch of socialists, what does that say?
Originally posted by Cigar-smoker ace: I dont know what prehipheral politics means.
There used to be some very articulate liberals on this forum that would engage in some great discussions...most have since left...Please don't take my questions as a challenge, but rather a discussion...
By prehipheral politics, I mean the fact the disucssion about the passage of the bill has nothing to do with the proposed impact of cap-and-trade as a tool to protect the environment---the discussion is on costs, jobs, taxes...
Do you think the cap-and-trade system is an effective measure? Better than nothing? At least it's a start?
Why don't you want it to pass? Is it becasue of what the bill actually sets out to do, or is it because of the economic arguments associated with the legislation?
jag
The cap-and-trade system in my opinion is not an effective measure. I don't take your question as a chalenge. I don't want it to pass because of what it raises. Gas and electric prices etc..... Now i am not one for politics to say the least. Obama will do whatever it takes to have this thing passed. I don't trust obama whatsoever. Thats why i didn't vote for him.
Originally posted by Vision: This has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with growing government, as fast and big as possible; capitalizing on a crisis for Christ's sake. It's criminal.
Chatter on the Hill says that lowlife Rahm Emanuel is calling up Dems on the fence and dropping the f bomb all over them.
Chicago thug politics. But frankly if the Right can't beat a bunch of socialists, what does that say?
Originally posted by jagmqt: Well, actually, it's not. Cap-and-trade was originally proposed by industry as a free market method of emissions control. It allows industry to determine the most efficient method for them to adhere to a quite moderate national emissions standard.
jag
Horse Crap.
WSJ:
Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.
Cap and trade, in other words, is a scheme to redistribute income and wealth -- but in a very curious way. It takes from the working class and gives to the affluent; takes from Miami, Ohio, and gives to Miami, Florida; and takes from an industrial America that is already struggling and gives to rich Silicon Valley and Wall Street "green tech" investors who know how to leverage the political class.
Your article doesn't contradict my point...this is the industry-preferred method of pollution control.
I find that article curious...it makes a lot of assumptions...but the biggest is that people won't change behavior.
First, cap/trade does not tax people directly...I hope you realize that. Perhaps you know this, perhaps you don't, but I'm goint to put it here for the sake of the discussion so we're all on the same page: Cap/Trade does two thing: 1. It issues "permits" to stationary emissions sources allowing a certain volume of pollution. I'm not sure, under this bill, if hourly or annual emissions are used. But the "tax" referred to is the price statinoary sources pay for their permits.
2. It allows statinoary soruces to trade/sell the permits. So if you're a plant in Ohio that emits a lot, much more than your permit allows, you can "buy" the privliege to pollute more by purchasing permits from those that reduce their emissions below their permitted level.
This will hit the citizens because the polluters paying for the permits will pass the cost to the consumer.
Now, I know on many energy bills, you can choose to pay a slightly higher rate for "green sources" of energy...the tax won't affect those. I know that the first off-shore windfarm is being built off Nantucket...the tax wont hit those consumers. There are plans to build windfarms in the Great Lakes...that will be cheaper.
And just like when gas went to $4/gallon and people drove less, if energy goes up, people will conserve and find alternate means.
The same speculation arose when the Superfund was created to pay for clean-up of polluted sites...The govt. taxed the polluters, the expected pass-through of the tax was predicted to be astronomical...but it had very little impact overall.
Once the government creates a scarce new commodity -- in this case the right to emit carbon -- and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices
That's the assumption this article is based upon, the rest is hypotietical calculations based on a worst-case scenario.
The article also doesn't consider what companies will be forced to do when they cannot purchase "permits" from anyone...they will be forced to modify their discharge to reduce emissions. We've been absorbing the pass-through costs of modernizing for the last 40 years in our prices...if the cost of modernizing is cheaper than the costs of permitting, the whole article is bunk--but it doesn't consider a pro-active industry acting on market principles.
The chart showing per capita CO2 emissions is worthless as well. While Wyoming has coal fired plants, the power leaves Wyoming...all consumers that purchase the power will absorb the costs...the article makes it appear that Wyoming citizens will pay for the whole bill.
I wish it said who wrote that article. I think this one is more fair...
jag, I like you and respect your intellect. But you are completely wrong on this, and I don't know how to get this through to you. It's like you're missing the forest for the trees or something.
It's government abuse of the worst kind. This is an horrific situation.
It's insanity. We're struggling through a recession- the government caused- and the government wants to place controls on energy in the name of Global Warming.
Originally posted by Vision: It's insanity. We're struggling through a recession- the government caused- and the government wants to place controls on energy in the name of Global Warming.
Madness.
See, that may be the underlying difference between our positions.
I'm willing to concede that emissions impact our environment...but I don't purport to know what that impact is or to what extent it needs to be controlled.
I've used this analogy before...but if you shut your garage with the car running, you can see the impact of emissions. The atmosphere is a little bigger, but there are alot more emissions contributing over a much longer time...so I'll acknowledge an impact, but I don't know who to believe as to the results.
jag
quote:
We should be too big to take offense and too noble to give it. ~ Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 2216 | Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Registered: September 15, 2006
Originally posted by jagmqt: I'm willing to concede that emissions impact our environment...but I don't purport to know what that impact is or to what extent it needs to be controlled.
Does it concern you that the GW crowd tries to silence debate over it?
Originally posted by adcp3fe: If France can use Nuclear Power for most of there electricity we can also.
France and Frenchmen are different than America & Americans. In France people have more respect and more confidence in engineers, scientists and educated people than the people here do.
In France the electrical utility Electricite de France (EDF) is publically owned. The nuclear power stations are all standardized and essentially all (almost) identical.
In France the EDF, the Societe National des Chemins de Fer (SNCF), Airbus and the like are considered motors of the economy. Here, the tradional main beneficiaries of Keynesianism have been the arms industry and the military. Much of NASA`s support is due to miltary applications of space.
One must of course remember that the defense of the freeworld and the western democracies is largely based on the military prowess of NATO`s formidable USA component.
Originally posted by hydragoat: Much of NASA`s support is due to miltary applications of space.
Great point. Exploration is at the bottom of NASA's priority list. The militarization of space is currently full speed ahead. I guess I would rather see the US do it before anyone else.
quote:
One must of course remember that the defense of the freeworld and the western democracies is largely based on the military prowess of NATO`s formidable USA component.
Exactly.
Posts: 3304 | Location: WI | Registered: November 16, 2007
KKL I work in a field where the scientific and engineering applications of probabilities and statistics are very important.
I can make predictions as to what will happen with products and processes. I can predict failures that will occur downstream as time progresses. I can predict how the environment and human beings will cause failures and how many there will be.
The kicker is that people disbelieve this.
People are funny. If I challenged someone to play Russian roulette with 1 bullet and 1 million empty chambers; they would all refuse to play even if there was a rich prize. Yet people play Russian roulette everytime they drive their car; they expect to get home safely because they think they drive safely and they have "control". The paradox is that most people think that others do not drive well.
What is my point?
What is, is. An actual fact is the actual fact. Whether we know it or not, whether we believe it or not, whether we choose to obfuscate it or not...a fact is a fact.
im just waiting for the day we figure out fission, then all of this is really a moot point. i guess we will have the environmentalists telling us that helium is causing irreversible damage to our vocal chords by making our voices higher
