# The Cost of Cap and Trade? Would it even work?



## JBeukema (Jun 25, 2009)

> You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know &#8212; *Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket*. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I&#8217;m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it &#8212; whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.


Audio


Today, Obama insisted that (in the future?), this system would cost the taxpayer 'A _postage stamp a day'

_So... which is it?
Also, if the big polluters can just buy credits, how will that reduce emissions? If they can't afford to retrofit (or don't want to) and credits are cheaper, they'll just buy credits. If credits cost more than retrofitting, then this will effectively put a company out of business if it can't make the cut=- thereby reducing competition and putting greater power in the hands of few, larger companies- the ones who are most likely to find a way around this anyway, while passing costs onto the consumer.

How is this supposed to work, exactly?


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> <object width=&quot;518&quot; height=&quot;419&quot;><param name=&quot;movie&quot; value=&quot;http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e46U2Gnzpr&quot; /><param name=&quot;allowFullScreen&quot; value=&quot;true&quot; /><embed src=&quot;http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e46U2Gnzpr&quot; allowfullscreen=&quot;true&quot; width=&quot;518&quot; height=&quot;419&quot; /></object>
> 
> 
> > You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know  *Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket*. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because Im capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it  whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
> ...



Just post the URL, then we can 'see' what you are talking about.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jun 25, 2009)

Cap and Trade is a stupid idea. It'll necessitate all sorts of regulations, it'll make a market out of it, people can cheat it out, bureaucracies need to be expanded, etc. etc.

What we need is a simple, good, old, effective CARBON TAX and be done with it.


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

That noone can thing of a rebuttal to these most basic observations or demonstrate any way that this new taxation would benefit America or her People- yet it seems a very real possibility that it will be pushed through to satisfy peronsal and political agendas- causes me to lose another of the last strands of hope I have held out for this nation


----------



## editec (Jun 26, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> Cap and Trade is a stupid idea. It'll necessitate all sorts of regulations, it'll make a market out of it, people can cheat it out, bureaucracies need to be expanded, etc. etc.
> 
> What we need is a simple, good, old, effective CARBON TAX and be done with it.


 
I actually agree with that.

The CAP and TRADE law appears to me to be *a cheat waiting to happen.*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 26, 2009)

The Cap and Tax Fiction - WSJ.com


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

So my next question is this: is it stupidity or malevolence that guides these assholes?


----------



## oreo (Jun 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> So my next question is this: is it stupidity or malevolence that guides these assholes?




_The audacity & arrogance of man to believe that since he has been on this planet a blink of an eye--in earth terms--to be able to control mother nature is beyond comprehension._

This bill is nothing more than "fear mongering" that is used to tax-tax-tax. 

When someone can prove to me that by simply exhaling the air we breath is a cause of Global warming--that will be the day.  *To date there is absolutely no scientic evidence of that.*

In fact, today--temperatures all over this country are below normal.  I would consider that global cooling.

*Another 300 pages were added to this bill at 3 a.m. last night. *  WHY?  They pulled the "extra" goodies off of the shelf-- to get democrats who would have voted against this insanity to now vote for it.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 26, 2009)

oreo said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> > So my next question is this: is it stupidity or malevolence that guides these assholes?
> ...



Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com



> Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
> 
> If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## Annie (Jun 26, 2009)

editec said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Cap and Trade is a stupid idea. It'll necessitate all sorts of regulations, it'll make a market out of it, people can cheat it out, bureaucracies need to be expanded, etc. etc.
> ...



Yep the whole can is thrown into this. From redistribution of income, to lost jobs, to lightbulbs, nothing was left out. It's a mishmash of humongous proportions!


----------



## Foxfyre (Jun 26, 2009)

If you haven't called and emailed your Congressperson in Washington to register your opinion on this, please do so now.  It's really hard to get through--the lines have been jammed for 24 hours now--but apparently the calls are having an effect as the trend is tipping towards 'no'.  Pelosi has suspended debate for now but the vote is still scheduled for late this afternoon or early evening.



> *How Big Is the Tax?*
> 
> The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis (CDA) found that, after adjusting for inflation, the government would collect $5.7 trillion in tax revenue between 2012 and 2035. CDA's economic analysis found that, by 2035, the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation would also:
> 
> ...


----------



## Soaring (Jun 26, 2009)

http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-bs-doll.jpg


----------



## JBeukema (Jun 26, 2009)

Soaring said:


> http://www.moonbattery.com/obama-bs-doll.jpg




I want one...


----------



## editec (Jun 26, 2009)

JBeukema said:


> So my next question is this: is it stupidity or malevolence that guides these assholes?


 
Malevolence is the social manifestation of stupidity, amigo.

So the answer is really _both._

Simple greed, on the other hand, is merely _un_enlightened self-interest.


----------



## Terral (Jun 27, 2009)

Hi JB:



JBeukema said:


> *[FONT=&quot]The Cost of Cap and Trade? Would it even work? [/FONT]*


 
  Yes! This *&#8216;fascist piece of legislation based on the unscientific assertions of Al Gore among others, if it passes into law, would destroy the United Sttes by legislating the elimination of high energy flux density types of energy production necessary for maintaining a growing population and replacing them with Dark Age technologies like wind, solar power and plant-based fuels which are incapable of sustaining human life on this planet.&#8217;* Lyndon LaRouche (story and video links).

  Lyndon LaRouche can show you 25 ways that this Cap And Trade Fiasco will destroy the USA and reduce the Global Population by billions of people. I am here to show you that the Obama Administration is using the same trickery as the Bushie Administration by pushing Trillion-dollar Legislation through Congress using Crisis after Crisis after Crisis. Everyone should remember when Bernanke and Paulson ran to Congress (Sept. 18, 2008) with a three-page outline for new legislation to begin this Bailout Stupidity last fall, because the sky was falling and this was the only way out. In both cases, the out-of-control Administrative Branch deliberately violated the three-branch checks and balances of our Federal Government to force the House of Representatives into passing legislation that is destructive to the United States of America and U.S. Citizens. *Listen to Peter Schiff* (June 26, 2009 video blog).

In all of these cases, Lobby Group Representatives are working inside the Administrative and Congressional branches to create all of these hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages of legislation that nobody in Congress even takes the time to read. 

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoCsFsU_irY"]Warren Buffett Slams &#8216;Cap and Trade&#8217;[/ame]

  Warren Buffet knows full well that all of this Cap and Trade nonsense is another tax on Americans that nobody can afford. Everyone to see higher costs from this legislation will pass that on to American Consumers now going into foreclosure at a rate of 10,000 every day. 

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_VqTQiQsp4"]Rep. Dingell Knows Cap & Trade Is A BIG Tax[/ame]

  Everything the out-of-control Obama Administration is pushing (Bailouts, Stimulus, Banking Reform, Healthcare Reform, Cap and Trade, etc.) deliberately places a heavy burden on U.S. Citizens, the Imploding U.S. Economy &#8216;and&#8217; works to destroy this once-great nation. 

  [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dOaHgkAHP4"]YouTube - LaRouche: April 28, 2009 - What is Empire? 1/6[/ame]

  Lyndon LaRouche explains how Cap and Trade is just one nail in the coffin of the USA as we know it by deliberately using a Nazi Model. *&#8220;Cap and Trade is Hitler Policy. It&#8217;s mass murder.&#8221;* So, Yes! The Cap and Trade Policy of the out-of-control Obama Administration will help to destroy the USA, which is primary objective of the Obama Puppeteers bringing in their New World Order.


  GL,

  Terral


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 27, 2009)

Epsilon Delta said:


> What we need is a simple, good, old, effective CARBON TAX and be done with it.


Why? What exactly for?

You do realize of course, that if the enviro movement gets its stated goal -- greatly reduced greenhouse gases -- that we won't have a green planet, we will have a brown, cold one?

Why do you hate trees?


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 27, 2009)

I'm going to anwer the thread question because I have posted  a lot of data in other threads.

Answer:

THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA


----------



## cmaddog111 (Jun 30, 2009)

We need to scrap this cap and trade system and go for a luxury tax system.

For my example, assume 1 ton of coal emits 5700 lbs of CO2 and 20 million BTU (numbers readily available through basic chemistry calculations).

Now i dont have numbers for how much carbon is sequestered from power plants, so my estimate could be way too high or already accomplished, but for the sake of argument, what if we set the goal for half or the emissions?

So for every 20 mil BTU, there is a small tax on 2850 lbs CO2, and then a huge tax after that. It would pose a solution to the market that is going to form for carbon credits.

Of course, a scale would have to be made based on the ability of larger plants to capture more carbon and the smaller plants being unable to do it as efficiently to keep the competition between plants, but I think it could be plausible.


----------



## cmaddog111 (Jun 30, 2009)

Also, here is a study on how much Cap 'n Trade will cost you prepared for a senator:

 cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10327/06-19-CapAndTradeCosts.pdf

I'm not allowed to post links so add the w's!


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 30, 2009)

cmaddog111 said:


> We need to scrap this cap and trade system and go for a luxury tax system.
> 
> For my example, assume 1 ton of coal emits 5700 lbs of CO2 and 20 million BTU (numbers readily available through basic chemistry calculations).
> 
> ...



What your proposing has already been suggested in 1993 with Clinton's BTU tax, and  thats basically the same as taxing carbon emissions. They end up with the same result and thats  causing an undue burden on anything that uses energy, therefor leading to rise in prices in everything from gas to home utilities. We absolutly do not need a rise in prices in a time when the economy is in massive downturn and the resulting job losses that will happen when programs that tax energy are instituted in order to fix a problem that may or may not exist. 

On the chopping block is Mr. Clinton's proposal to tax the heat content of fuels - the so-called Btu tax. Democratic leaders have indicated that it may be scaled back by one-quarter to one-third from its current level of $72 billion. In addition, congressional leaders and the president himself signaled Tuesday that the tax would be shifted away from a heat-content tax. An value-added tax or a similar variant of a sales tax appears more likely, according to one Republican who met with the president.

Clinton Retreats on Energy Tax in Fight Over Budget - The New York Times


----------



## cmaddog111 (Jun 30, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> cmaddog111 said:
> 
> 
> > We need to scrap this cap and trade system and go for a luxury tax system.
> ...



I am not concerned with global warming, because of the fight over its actual existence. My concern is with the unnatural amount of CO2 that we have introduced into the atmosphere over the past 100-200 years. 

The best free-market solution to this would be complete sequestration of carbon, which can be done with great efficiency. The problem is we are encountering NUMBY.

If you are familiar with the debate over wind powered generators, you will know the term NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). The carbon sequestration problem is similar, except people don't want it under their back yard. What we need is a private sequestration company that can find a way to store it somewhere. They are proposing filling the oil and natural gas fields that we are draining back up with this carbon, which could be a great idea. But until something happens with the market on this front, it'll stay where it is.

Therefore the modern solution is a tax of some kind. Call it Cap and Trade, call it Btu tax, call it Ishmael. It doesn't matter. Anything that inconveniences big energy will not be passed by the Senate. 

So basically, government and red tape both suck.

But even somehow if this bill magically passes, its only a 15% commitment to cutting out Carbon by 2020, taking us back to only 4% below 1990 levels of carbon release. Lotta good that'll do.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 30, 2009)

cmaddog111 said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > cmaddog111 said:
> ...



First of all let me say this, I'm not at all concerned about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere because there have been periods in our history where we have had  three times the amount of CO2 that we do now and that was  during the mini ice age. Further, during  the 40's and 50's when industrial production in this country was very high and we had no where near the amount of  environmental controls we have on CO2 emissions we do now the temps were actually cooler. The actual Global temp. rise  according to NASA in the last 120 years has been .06 degrees and this bill according to the EPA after we spend Trillions of dollars and providing countries like China and India adopt the same standards which they cleary will not will cause an overall drop if in temps of .02 degrees in the next 100 years.  

As for the sequestration issue. you do realize that one of the most popular methos of sequestration is to capture the CO2 and turn it into a liquid form or gell and store it under ground. The same enviro-business that would  advocate these methods as the same people who point at finger at nuclear power and say it's bad because of the waste storage issue. At least you cna reprocess spent nuclear fuel and have much less of the toxic waste around that you would with Carbon capture.  

A pocket of magma lies beneath the lake and leaks carbon dioxide (CO2) into the water, changing it into carbonic acid. Nyos is one of only three known lakes to be saturated with carbon dioxide in this way, the others being Lake Monoun, at a distance of 100 km (62 mi) SSE, and Lake Kivu in Rwanda. On August 21, 1986, possibly triggered by a landslide, the lake suddenly emitted a large cloud of CO2, which suffocated 1,700 people and 3,500 livestock in nearby villages.[2] Though not completely unprecedented, it was the first known large-scale asphyxiation caused by a natural event. To prevent a repetition, a degassing tube that syphons water from the bottom layers of water to the top allowing the carbon dioxide to leak in safe quantities was installed in 2001, though additional tubes are needed to make the lake safe.[3]
Lake Nyos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So can you imagine the scale of  deaths with liquid or gell form CO2 stored in VAST amounts  under the ground?  While I'm all for energy conservation , I am also for  using EVERY single energy option available to this nation that will rid us of our dependance on OPEC for anything.  That includes our own domestic  oil and natural gas and coal. as well as nuclear as well as wind, solar, bio-mass, etc.  I am not one to leave technologies on the table because  I am under the mistaken impression that it does not fit into a marketing scheme that I have set up.

I do believe your correct though , this bill will have a lot of trouble passing the Senate. and  I for one will be thankful if it fails for many reaons, not the least of which , this nations long term survival.


----------



## cmaddog111 (Jun 30, 2009)

I agree with you! Nuclear is where we should be going! Clean, safe, efficient, and minimal waste! France is 70% nuclear. If we could do that, we would be much better off on all fronts.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jun 30, 2009)

cmaddog111 said:


> My concern is with the unnatural amount of CO2 that we have introduced into the atmosphere over the past 100-200 years.


Why? It's the life-giving element of the planet. Without it we would be Mars. Human emissions are minuscule compared to nature's.

There's nothing that makes it "unnatural." It's a product of ALL combustion.

Were you and the environazis _really_ worried about CO2, the first thing you would be calling for is banning it for use as special effects "smoke." Right? Making CO2 on purpose, to release it into the atmosphere for no other reason than a visual effect in movies, rock concerts, sporting events, pro wrestling shows, etc? You would be banning the manufacture of it for firefighting and water treatment applications, which account for millions of uncounted tons of the stuff. Let's ban that stuff first, then I might take some of this CO2 demonization seriously.

Otherwise it's just a convenient devil, a cover story for what the REAL mission of the environazis is, control over people's lives.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jun 30, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFC48voKjbs]YouTube - Minority Leader John Boehner On The Clean Energy & Climate Change Bill pt.1[/ame]


----------



## TallTexan (Jul 2, 2009)

Note to the unknowing:

"Man-made global warming" is not happening.  Whoever believes otherwise has been victimized by a cruel hoax.


----------



## roper1975 (Jul 2, 2009)

Aside from the constitutional argument on regulating CO2 or even just carbon itself.  

Does nobody understand that CO2 and specifically Carbon is a naturally occurring substance?  There is no place on this planet that you can go that you wouldn't be around carbon in one way or another.  The CO2 level in the atmosphere has nothing to do with this non-existing global warming or man made global warming.  How arrogant are we that we think that we, as humans, can affect the Earth's temperature in either direction.  When a volcano erupts or a forest fire burns large areas of land, is that oxygen or hydrogen that is emitted into the atmosphere?  Of course not.  How is it that we think that we can eliminate carbon from the planet.

What would be the result of reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?  There would probably be less vegetation.  In case you have forgotten, plants thrive on CO2.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 2, 2009)

roper1975 said:


> What would be the result of reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?  There would probably be less vegetation.  In case you have forgotten, plants thrive on CO2.


That's the whole dishonesty behind the "green" movement. For if the environazis achieved their stated goals, greatly reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, we wouldn't have a green planet at all. We would have a brown, cold one.

And they know this.


----------



## ReillyT (Jul 3, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> roper1975 said:
> 
> 
> > What would be the result of reducing the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?  There would probably be less vegetation.  In case you have forgotten, plants thrive on CO2.
> ...



That is just a silly argument.  Saying that we have too much of something is not the same as saying that there can never be too little. 

You are being laughably foolish or dishonest.  I leave it to you to figure out which, although neither serves you terribly well.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 3, 2009)

Scientists need money, and they need to have pet theories," said Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. "And who wouldn't want to save the Earth?"

Spencer said scientists are paid to find that global warming is caused by humans. "If you're paid to find something, you're going to find it," he told about 80 people in a Holiday Inn ballroom.

Spencer agrees that humans are creating more carbon dioxide, but he doesn't agree it's causing climate change.

"This is a philosophical idea that CO2 is bad," Spencer said.

Instead, Spencer said, the Earth naturally heats up over a period of time and then cools. He showed histories of the Earth's temperature fluctuating over hundreds of years and said the planet hasn't warmed in seven years.

Bill Chameides, dean of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, said Spencer's arguments are what magicians call "ignoratio elenchi" or logical fallacy

"*We've looked at every possible form of heat, including clouds, and the only source of heat is greenhouse gases," *he said, adding it's insulting that Spencer would suggest scientists are paid to come to this conclusion. "Scientists make their reputation on debunking theories."
Scientist: Warming is natural - Local & State - News & Observer

The reason I put that in bold is to show you the current mode of thinking for some of the believers in Dr. Mann's theory of Gobal Warming. So the earth is not heated by the sun, well that comes as news to me and all this time I thought the sun was  a source of heating as well.  I wonder if the learned Dean has ever heard of the "heat island" effect?  I happen to agree with Prof. Spencer in his  conclusions that "Global Warming" is a naturally occuring  event.  The  enviro-business  lobby that promotes this theory does so because  it means  MONEY.  If for example  the  theory put up by the IPCC as  gospel was found to be completely false as was the theory in the 70's that we were facing a new ice age due to man made CO2 then many people in the enviro-business would be out of work. Thats the goal of this bill! It has  little to do with the environment or energy for that matter.  It has everything to do with enriching those that support it.  If you think me incorrect look at the major companies that are supporting this bill and have already formed  carbon trading houses  in anticipation of the comming windfall. I find it also rather  interesting that major proponents of this legislation are also heavily vested in the business side of this  bill. The bottom line is this, a bill that aims to reduce carbon emissions that is based on the assumption that every MAJOR producer of  greenhouses gases adopt this fails from day it is signed.  Nations like China,India, and Russia  have no intentions of adopting these protocols and therefor cancel out any extremly small temp gains that would be made in a 100 year time period for this bill.  So therefor, the bills true aim is to tax EVERY american citizen to set up a carbon trading scheme to enrich enviro-businesses  in a time of economic  stress.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 3, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > roper1975 said:
> ...


How silly is it to take what they are claiming is science and apply it in the other direction? Greatly reduced greenhouse gas levels in our atmosphere would have a disastrous effect on the ecosystem. And greatly reduced greenhouse gases IS the stated goal of the environazi movement, sold to dupes with the emotional "green" hook.

Their goal clearly isn't a green planet.

And CO2, the convenient devil in this religious cult known as AGW... Were the environazis really worried about CO2, the first thing they would be calling for is banning it for use as special effects "smoke." Right? Making CO2 on purpose, to release it into the atmosphere for no other reason than a visual effect in movies, rock concerts, sporting events, pro wrestling shows, etc? They would be banning the manufacture of it for firefighting and water treatment applications, which account for millions of uncounted tons of the stuff. Let's ban that stuff first, then I might take some of this CO2 demonization seriously.

Otherwise it's just a convenient devil, a cover story for what the REAL mission of the environazis is, control over people's lives.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 3, 2009)

I thought it worth another posting the contrast here in this bill. This is some of Al Gore's testimony before congress on this bill and his questioning by the congressman from Oregon.  The congressman is making a very good point when it comes to energy sources as it relates to things like bio-mass, if this bill has  a THING to do with energy independance then it would not be exclusive of technologies based on the  feelings of  science that is debatable. Rather this is further proof this bill is nothing but a  Tax increase to support an agenda....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3L8mcGXbo&feature=related]YouTube - Greg Walden to Vice President Gore: Why exclude biomass from major energy bill?[/ame]


----------



## ReillyT (Jul 3, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> ReillyT said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



Once again, saying that there is too much of something does not imply that there isn't an amount that is too little.  My guess (because it is the reasonable assumption) is that environmentalists are looking for a bit of balance. 

Special effects smoke?  Are you kidding me?  

De minimis (or alternative spelling "de minimus").  Look it up.


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 3, 2009)

If I start a corporation called Xotoxi Industries, but never build factory, hire any employees, purchase any equipment, or emit any smoke, can I just sell all of my emission credits for full profit?


----------



## ReillyT (Jul 3, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> If I start a corporation called Xotoxi Industries, but never build factory, hire any employees, purchase any equipment, or emit any smoke, can I just sell all of my emission credits for full profit?



That is a juicy recipe for fraud.  Creative thinking.


----------



## xotoxi (Jul 3, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > If I start a corporation called Xotoxi Industries, but never build factory, hire any employees, purchase any equipment, or emit any smoke, can I just sell all of my emission credits for full profit?
> ...


 
Maybe we could all go in on it together.

USMB Enterprises
Gunther "Gunny" McGunnery, CEO


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 3, 2009)

The term environmentalist though could be applied to anyone that would seek to not harm the environment or make an effort to do. So then if I owned a  nuclear power facility and  as such did not emit any greenhouse gases and safely stored the waste from that plant so according to todays standards I could then be considered an environmentalist. However, that term though is associated with those that have choosen a set of  technologies and procedures that that deem to be good for the environment and nothing else is subject to debate. So I rather doubt that the current "environmentalist" especially those that support this bill could be remotely seen as  being  balanced in their approach.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 3, 2009)

I think Cap and Trade, if it passes the senate and is signed by President Obama, will be a disaster for the country economically and the planet environmentally.

All it will do is get companies to pack up shop in the US (economic disaster) and move their production to 3rd world countries with NO environmental restrictions (bad for the environment)

I just dont see how it will help anything.    

There are several provisions that i've read in the bill that aggrivate me to no end like the one where you have to make your home meet "green" standards before you can sell it.   Or the shower nazi  that will be subsidised in it.  I cant post links but type in canadafreepress and shower nazi to your search engine

Did anyone post the text of cap and trade yet?  It is  H.R. 2454 if you want to search for the Text


----------



## KittenKoder (Jul 3, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > If I start a corporation called Xotoxi Industries, but never build factory, hire any employees, purchase any equipment, or emit any smoke, can I just sell all of my emission credits for full profit?
> ...



LOL ... yeah, but Gore the Savior is allowed to sell ones he doesn't even have ...


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 3, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> Midnight Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > ReillyT said:
> ...


Now THAT is silly. Science TELLS us what happens when greenhouse gases are too few in the atmosphere. You may remember these are called "ice ages."





> My guess (because it is the reasonable assumption) is that environmentalists are looking for a bit of balance.


Here you are, with the wrong term. Environmentalists and what I term environazis are two different things entirely. Your average run of the mill environmentalist wants balance, wants a green, clean planet. The environazis want to co-opt that movement, adopt its cause, but only so they can use it to control people and destroy industry. And since they are also eugenics freaks, don't mind at all that in so doing, might trigger a massive ice age that makes it impossible for half of the earth's human population to survive it.





> Special effects smoke?  Are you kidding me?


Read what I actually said again, for comprehension this time:

"Were the environazis *really* worried about CO2, the *first* thing they would be calling for is banning it for use as special effects "smoke." Right? Making CO2 on purpose, to release it into the atmosphere for no other reason than a visual effect in movies, rock concerts, sporting events, pro wrestling shows, etc? They would be banning the manufacture of it for firefighting and water treatment applications, which account for millions of uncounted tons of the stuff."

This if IF they were really worried about it's maybe harmful effects on the planet. They're not at all worried about that. For if they were, they would have started with the _casual_ manufacture and use of it, easiest and cheapest thing to start with and actually get stopped.





> De minimis (or alternative spelling "de minimus").  Look it up.


I knew at some point I would see this silliness. You in your ignorance believe that the use of CO2 for visual effects, water treatment, and firefighting is trivial and not worth worrying about. This is because you have no clue how CO2 is made for this, nor how much of it is made for this and disbursed into the atmosphere. I do have, and it is NOT trivial. It's also, mysteriously, not ever counted when statistics of how much anthropogenic CO2 is entering the atmosphere.

It's not counted because it's the "good" CO2.... Environazis believe CO2 is like cholesterol in that there's "good" and "bad" CO2. To them, good is naturally occurring and recreational CO2, and CO2 coming from other countries, and bad CO2 is limited to what is produced by American mankind's combustion of fossil fuels.


----------



## ReillyT (Jul 3, 2009)

Midnight Marauder said:


> ReillyT said:
> 
> 
> > Midnight Marauder said:
> ...



It is too hard to keep embedding replies, so I will number.

1. Once again, saying there is too much of something does not imply that there can't be too little.  To spell this out:  Environmentalists who want to limit industry-induced carbon emissions are not suggesting that there isn't some level of CO2 emissions that would be too low.  You see, they want neither global warming nor an ice age.  Why do I ascribe to them this belief?  Because believing that they want an ice age is ascribing to them the most illogical of beliefs... which is nice to do when you want to demonize them rather than debate them.

2. Perhaps I didn't know what you meant by "Environazis" because you made the term up, ascribe to these people a belief system (i.e., straw man) and then posit that they control whatever change is being proposed that you don't like.

3. Two different categories:  special effects smoke and carbon dioxide produced for firefighting (didn't know this even existed, but I will take your word for it). The first seems unnecessary.  The second I assume has greater utility. I am not aware of anyone targeting the latter and if it is necessary to fight fires, I wouldn't imagine anyone would be throwing a fit about this.

With respect to special effects smoke... de minimus.  Please show me that special effects smoke represents an appreciable amount of man-produced carbon dioxide (give me a reputable statistic).  If it doesn't, that is why no one is talking about it.

4. Since I don't know of any standard definition of "Environazis," I guess they must think whatever you want them to think - by definition.  However, most people concerned about the environment (and by most people, I mean pretty much everybody) recognizes that CO2 is CO2, but that it is easier to reduce human-produced CO2 than to stop volcanoes from exploding.

I still haven't figured out whether you are dishonest or just plain stupid, but I am rapidly leaning toward the latter option.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (Jul 3, 2009)

ReillyT said:


> It is too hard to keep embedding replies, so I will number.


It's also apparently too hard for you to keep up with a topic, and change your mantra.


> 1. Once again, saying there is too much of something does not imply that there can't be too little.


No one said this or ascribed this to anyone. It's _your_ leading strawman in this discussion





> 3. Two different categories:  special effects smoke and carbon dioxide produced for firefighting (didn't know this even existed, but I will take your word for it).


It's actually three. You left out water treatment.





> The first seems unnecessary.  The second I assume has greater utility. I am not aware of anyone targeting the latter and if it is necessary to fight fires, I wouldn't imagine anyone would be throwing a fit about this.


CO2 is in billions of fire extinguishers all over the country, in fact the world. It works by denying oxygen to a fire. Because it is heavier than air, it sinks in and displaces the oxygen. It's used in mass quantities on ships for fire suppression. It's now not vital, as it used to be. It can be eliminated from fire suppression work. Just like we removed aerosol propellants, and removed freon, if the environazis really thought CO2 was a danger to the environment, we would be removing CO2 from fire suppression duties.

Water Treatment: Millions of tons of CO2 are made and used daily by every city on the globe just about, for injection into the final step of the reclamation process. Because CO2 is highly acidic, it's injected to lower the pH of the product from around 11 to a neutral 8. Like for fire suppression, this use of CO2 has been deemed really unnecessary by advancing technology, but hasn't been replaced yet. Just like we removed aerosol propellants, and removed freon, if the environazis really thought CO2 was a danger to the environment, we would be removing CO2 from water treatment duties.





> With respect to special effects smoke... de minimus.  Please show me that special effects smoke represents an appreciable amount of man-produced carbon dioxide (give me a reputable statistic).  If it doesn't, that is why no one is talking about it.


I am sure no one's done a study on that, but if you have ever seen what goes on when CO2 is used in this way, it's typically either three or four 18-wheel tanker trucks of CO2 needed, or some larger venues use a CO2 generator of their own. But, let's not quibble -- if the environazis really thought CO2 was a danger to the environment, we would be removing CO2 from visual effects duty. _Especially_ from visual effects duty, since you said yourself it seems unnecessary. And it is, it's recreational, casual use of a _dangerous_ gas!





> 4. Since I don't know of any standard definition of "Environazis," I guess they must think whatever you want them to think - by definition.


I gave you the definition, and they are defined by their own actions.





> However, most people concerned about the environment (and by most people, I mean pretty much everybody) recognizes that CO2 is CO2, but that it is easier to reduce human-produced CO2 than to stop volcanoes from exploding.


I gave you this too. Environmentalsts are "most people concerned about the environment." Environazis are not concerned about the environment.





> I still haven't figured out whether you are dishonest or just plain stupid, but I am rapidly leaning toward the latter option.


You actually haven't figured much of anything out. You have a shrill, loud little group who says they want to reduce the amount of the very compound that, as much as any other, gives our planet _life._ They demonize it, make it their devil in their little religious cult cause. And you and millions of dupes out there are actually buying the scam.

They figured out early on that they couldn't demonize what is by far the #1 greenhouse gas -- water vapor -- because Bubba would laugh at them. They chose CO2, which is like, eighth on the list of greenhouse gases, because they know Bubba really doesn't understand it and probably could be convinced it's bad. Because it's a product of mankind's evil fossil fuel combustion fetish!

Then they make legislation that does everything _except_ reduce carbon emissions!

See?


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 3, 2009)

Cap and trade sure won't work if the public can't be sold on it.  From the most recent Rasmussen poll:



> Wednesday, July 01, 2009
> Fifty-six percent (56%) of Americans say they are not willing to pay more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming.
> 
> A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.
> ...


----------



## wimpy77 (Jul 4, 2009)

right now there isn't enough support in the senate for this bill. democrats remember all to well what happened in 1993 when the did something similar. they ended up losing their majority.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 4, 2009)

wimpy77 said:


> right now there isn't enough support in the senate for this bill. democrats remember all to well what happened in 1993 when the did something similar. they ended up losing their majority.



That's it in a nutshell.  Following the boondoggle of a really scary attempt at Hillarycare, proposed tax increases, and a flawed energy plan in Bill Clinton's first two years, all the media was caught by surprise when the GOP took control of both the House and Senate for the first time in like forever.   We can praise or condemn the President all we want, but without the consent of Congress, that kind of stuff doesn't ever get off the drawing board, much less get voted into law.

So, once the GOP took over, we did have truly representative government from both the Democrats and Republicans for the next several years and the people were happy.  Then, power madness seemed to take over the GOP early in the 21st century and lo and behold they forgot to be representatives of the people and they began behaving as the previously ousted Democrats had behaved.   And they too were banished.   (This is beginning to sound like the great American fairy tale isn't it?)

Well the Democrats seem to have even shorter memories than the Republicans had and they have emulated the worst of the GOP AND the worst of Democrats, and the GOP has a good chance to regain power in 2010 IF they just start paying attention to the people.

The people have strong opinions on Health Care, Immigration, fiscal responsibility, Global Warming, and energy.   The smart politicians will pay attention and at least start listening again.

Are there any smart politicians left?


----------



## k2skier (Jul 8, 2009)

From another thread I posted in...



I found this article very enjoying, and scary. Now G&S is involved in cap and trade...

Matt Taibbi on how Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression 

The Great American Bubble Machine : Rolling Stone


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jul 9, 2009)

awesome write up on cap and trade:

The two most invasive means our central government has at its disposal to control American lives and livelihoods are taxation and regulation, and this bill is a double header. It authorizes BHO's government to collect substantial new taxes and to exercise unprecedented economic control via new environmental regulations, all against a backdrop of the worst economic decline since Jimmy Carter was at the helm. (Fortunately Ronald Reagan implemented the right formula for economic recovery -- BO's "solution" is Carter's formula.) 

After the bill's passage, Obama trotted out this whopper: "Thanks to members of Congress who were willing to place America's progress before the usual Washington politics, this bill will create new businesses, new industries, and millions of new jobs, all without imposing untenable new burdens on the American people or America's businesses." 

Of course, that depends on what the definition of "untenable" is. In January 2008, Obama proclaimed, "nder my plan of a cap and trade [sic] system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket ... because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural gas ... you name it ... whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. ... [T]hey will pass that money on to the consumers." 


FULL ARTICLE Welcome to The Patriot Post


----------



## American Horse (Jul 9, 2009)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> awesome write up on cap and trade:
> 
> The two most invasive means our central government has at its disposal to control American lives and livelihoods are taxation and regulation, and this bill is a double header. It authorizes BHO's government to collect substantial new taxes and to exercise unprecedented economic control via new environmental regulations, all against a backdrop of the worst economic decline since Jimmy Carter was at the helm. (Fortunately Ronald Reagan implemented the right formula for economic recovery -- BO's "solution" is Carter's formula.)
> 
> ...



Large businesses and corporations like, no, love regulations; for them,  they level out the playing field.  They have platoons of attorneys and experts for filing documents to the EPA and other federal agencies.  Small businesses on the other hand can ill afford any of that.  Any idea what the cost of filing an environmental impact statement is? It is onerous.

Small businesses and entrepreneurs will be destroyed once the Senate passes and Obama signs C & T into law.  They (small businesses and entreps.) will have to bid against large businesses and corporations for those carbon credits, and they will rarely get any.  

The small business operators and entrepreneurs will end up having to sell their ideas to the big guys or go to work for them or their ideas will never come to fruition, and most will not because the big guys would disregard them, or just steal them.  This is just one of many reasons this bill, once passed into law will destroy the American economy.  The economy depends on small business for 80 percent of its employment and new jobs.  

How could you aim more accurately to shoot to kill the source of employment and economic growth of America? 

This law will end up being a Corporate expansion and Attorney subsidy law, I'm sure contrary to the wishes of most liberals (well except for the attorney part)  AND conservatives, who see corporations as a necessary evil.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 10, 2009)

USCAP is an expanding alliance of major businesses and leading climate and environmental groups that have come together to call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. 123123

After a year of dialogue and collaboration, the group produced a set of principles and recommendations to guide the formulation of a regulated economy-wide, market-driven approach to climate protection.

New members of this unique alliance include AES, Alstom, Boston Scientific Corporation, Chrysler, ConocoPhillips, Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, Exelon Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, The Nature Conservancy, NRG Energy, PepsiCo, Rio Tinto, Shell, and Siemens Corporation.

Founding members of USCAP include a number of major corporations: Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, FPL Group, General Electric, PG&E Corporation and PNM Resources &#8212; and four non-governmental organizations including: Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change and World Resources Institute.

The group believes that swift legislative action on the USCAP solutions-based proposal, entitled A Call for Action, would encourage innovation, enhance America's energy security, foster economic growth, improve our balance of trade and provide critically needed U.S. leadership on this vital global challenge.
United States Climate Action Partnership

I posted  a comment in another thread, however, this basically illustrates that the bill itself is corporate welfare program that will enrich several companies in the carbon trading business. While the  I am NOT against  exploring  ALL energy resources  , doing so at the expense of the American taxpayers  when this country is so deep in debt and with the economy  in terrible shape is asking for disaster.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 10, 2009)

> The Cost of Cap and Trade? Would it even work?


No.

In fact it could end up crowding out smaller businesses, as the big businesses drive up the costs of "carbon credits" to stay in business.

You need look no further than the FDA for a real world example of this model.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 10, 2009)

This is just a small smaple what is possible under this bill. 

A family that is struggling to meet it's obilgations and lives in an older home  after cap and trade has passed. They decide they can no longer stay there because  after fuel costs have risen for them to drive their older model car  and costs to keep it on the road as a result  of cost of parts and penalties assocaited with that.  The costs of their food have risen and the daily cost of living has risen as well. They sell their house and the Federal Govt. inspector comes into their older home and fails it and requires them to replace all the windows,waterheater, A/C, etc. and  in that time window the buyers  back out because the sellers cannot afford to make these changes. The end result, one more family in bankruptcy, and one more house taken back by the bank all in the name of  as yet unproven sicence.


----------



## Foxfyre (Jul 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> This is just a small smaple what is possible under this bill.



And your astute observations is only the tip of the iceberg.

This Ponzi scheme, flim flam, shell game that the liberal governments of the world, including the USA, intend to foist upon us is a brutal assault on our freedoms, opportunities, options, choices, will be used to confiscate our wealth and our property, and is a significant step toward one-world government that the modern Left desires.  In addition:

1.  Some very big names stand to achieve very large rewards by supporting the initiative.  General Electric, for instances, will rake in billions if Cap and Trade is enacted.  To help the cause it has instructed his owned media outlets--NBC, MSNBC, CNBC--to give this favorable press and to criticize President Obama about nothing.   Of couse most of the MSM remains in Obama's pocket as well.

2.  The lobbyists and union bosses who are actually writing the legislation will be allowed to extend exemptions and favors to those they represent.

3.  The latest scheme they've come up with internationally, with President Obama supporting the concept wholeheartedly, is for each nation to contribute 2% of the GDP to combat global warming to hold increase in global temperatures to 2 degrees Centigrade over the next 90 years.  Of course they won't be able to show how it was fighting global warming that held the temperature in check, but they will have license to take more of our money for the foreseeable future.  (Anybody who thinks it will all be used to fight global warming might be interested in a nice assortment of bridges I have to sell.)

4.  China, India, and Russia have all announced that this is not in their best interest and they won't be participating which ensures futility in the effort even with a remote possibility that we can significantly change our climate.   Our fearless leaders will go ahead with the scheme anyway--they won't give up all that lovely excuse to take more money from those who earn it, but the process will give the non participating nations a huge economic edge and make it far more difficult for the rest of us to make the money in the first place.

The gods must surely be laughing.


----------



## American Horse (Jul 10, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> This is just a small smaple what is possible under this bill.
> 
> A family that is struggling to meet it's obilgations and lives in an older home  after cap and trade has passed. They decide they can no longer stay there because  after fuel costs have risen for them to drive their older model car  and costs to keep it on the road as a result  of cost of parts and penalties assocaited with that.  The costs of their food have risen and the daily cost of living has risen as well. They sell their house and the Federal Govt. inspector comes into their older home and fails it and requires them to replace all the windows,waterheater, A/C, etc. and  in that time window the buyers  back out because the sellers cannot afford to make these changes. The end result, one more family in bankruptcy, and one more house taken back by the bank all in the name of  as yet unproven sicence.


This is a fact and it is outlined, for government agencies to enforce.  You might think that is impossible but it will work this way, and it's not even very complicated nor does it require a new government inspector to be set up: The HUD Closing Documents will have to show the inspection report and compliance to deficiencies.  If this cannot be verified, the loan for the buyer cannot close, and neither can the sale of the property.  Of course they could go ahead and sell on land contract, or the seller could forget the sale of their property and just continue to live there if they are not under duress to sell.

Edit:  I should mention there is a third option - Chicago style graft payments. pay off the inspector, with everyone in collusion.  Very risky, but not so much in Chicagoland.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jul 24, 2009)

editec said:


> Epsilon Delta said:
> 
> 
> > Cap and Trade is a stupid idea. It'll necessitate all sorts of regulations, it'll make a market out of it, people can cheat it out, bureaucracies need to be expanded, etc. etc.
> ...



Actually, cap and trade did rather well on cleaning up a lot of the sulfer pollution from the coal plants. However, I agree with a flat out carbon tax, one that would be better. Especially one that ratchets up each year.


----------



## Navy1960 (Jul 27, 2009)

The Spanish professor is puzzled. Why, Gabriel Calzada wonders, is the U.S. president recommending that America emulate the Spanish model for creating "green jobs" in "alternative energy" even though Spain's unemployment rate is 18.1 percent -- more than double the European Union average -- partly because of spending on such jobs?

Calzada, 36, an economics professor at Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has produced a report that, if true, is inconvenient for the Obama administration's green agenda, and for some budget assumptions that are dependent upon it.

Calzada says Spain's torrential spending -- no other nation has so aggressively supported production of electricity from renewable sources -- on wind farms and other forms of alternative energy has indeed created jobs. But Calzada's reportconcludes that they often are temporary and have received $752,000 to $800,000 each in subsidies -- wind industry jobs cost even more, $1.4 million each. And each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation -- sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency -- of capital. (European media regularly report "eco-corruption" leaving a "footprint of sleaze" -- gaming the subsidy systems, profiteering from land sales for wind farms, etc.) Calzada says the creation of jobs in alternative energy has subtracted about 110,000 jobs elsewhere in Spain's economy.

The president's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, was asked about the report's contention that the political diversion of capital into green jobs has cost Spain jobs. The White House transcript contained this exchange:

Gibbs: "It seems weird that we're importing wind turbine parts from Spain in order to build -- to meet renewable energy demand here if that were even remotely the case."

Tilting at Green Windmills

Do you know what  was  amusing about this article, the question about it's author on why compaines are investing in windmills, well let's see, it would not be  the heavy Govt. subsidies would it? or perhaps the billions about to be invested in the technology?  Of course a company is going to be sucking at that money trough.  However, cap and trade is a job killer and will NOT stimulate the economy in anyway shape or form no matter how much those who have been fooled into buying into the Global Warming marketing scheme.


----------



## mdn2000 (Sep 27, 2009)

technically wind power will create jobs, unfortunate for us they are all in china. China is rapidly increasing all forms of power production to produce the massive amounts of energy that the manufacturer of windmills require.

do a search on chinas power projects, its powering heavy industry, they intend to lead the world in windmill production.

Wind Power creates jobs because of the massive amounts of materials being consumed in the manufacturer of the windmill.


----------

