CAP AND TRADE - Coming to your state soon?

[gslack]

Cap and Trade requires businesses to BUY permission allotments from a "central authority" to both create and then use energy.

First of all, not all proposals have the allotments being auctioned by government. I favor 100% of them being distributed for free, but last I checked the proposal in motion is 80%.

Second of all, you are confusing a tax with a fee for use.

Lets see the source of that BS.....


Come on junior bring a source for a change, a real one, not a green biased blog or website....

And BTW, lets here your explantion for not knowing what FERMI was????

LOL, big time astrophysics PHD candidate should know what it is.

The fact is I already explained this but you ignored it like the little douchebag twerp you are.

Jesus chrsit twit, you don't even understand the principles behind a tax, let alone cap and trade..... But lets give you one more chance, so..... lets see the source of your 80% claim......

 

[westwall]

Actually yes you do. You have taken on the mantle of prosecutor in this little drama and you wish to convict the sneaky little devil CO2 of crimes agains humanity. That means before you get to enact draconian measures that will bankrupt the good people of this country you have to proove that what you are saying is true.

So far the exact opposit is occuring. All of 'your' evidence has been proven to be faked or worse. That amounsts to prosecutorial misconduct and will get you disbarred. In Manns case it is most likely going to get him tossed in the pokey for fraud.

I'm curious as to how cap and trade violates ones rights. Since when does anyone have a right to alter the worldwide chemistry of the atmosphere in ways that are detrimental to everyone?

You cannot prove that a few degree rise in temperature will be detrimental for everyone.

I don't have to.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Actually yes you do. You have taken on the mantle of prosecutor in this little drama...

Uhh, no I haven't. It is you and your denier ilk that wish to take a scientific debate and phrase it in terms of a courtroom trial, not me.

All of 'your' evidence has been proven to be faked or worse.

According to who?

That amounsts to prosecutorial misconduct and will get you disbarred.

I'm not a lawyer and this isn't at trial you ignorant twit.

 

[westwall]

Well according to the Courts in California they are the same.

"In 2004, the city of San Diego imposed a business tax-processing fee of $25, in order to cover tax collection costs and alleviate some of the pain from the budget deficit. That’s right– a processing fee to pay a tax. Last week, a state appeals court found that practice to be in violation of the California constitution.

The fee structure was an attempt to work around Prop. 218, which ensures any new taxes or tax increases must be approved by the voters. The fee was charged to all businesses, from large corporations to farmer’s market booths to rental properties."

So there you go. Fee is another word used by the governments involved to say tax.....when they aren't allowed to say tax.

Cap and Trade requires businesses to BUY permission allotments from a "central authority" to both create and then use energy.

First of all, not all proposals have the allotments being auctioned by government. I favor 100% of them being distributed for free, but last I checked the proposal in motion is 80%.

Second of all, you are confusing a tax with a fee for use.

 

[westwall]

Oh 'tuba,

You really should get out more. And I have to say I have to agree with gslack.. There is no way you are a grad student....you have far too much free time on your hands. When I was getting my post hole digger degree I was working my fanny off. So was every other doctoral candidate I knew.

Nope, you may be an undergrad....but based on your command of the english language..I doubt it.

Good day to you, have fun with your little diatribes and please don't let the facts get you down. Mann may actually be found not guilty...I doubt it, but this is the society that felt OJ was innocent too.

Actually yes you do. You have taken on the mantle of prosecutor in this little drama...

Uhh, no I haven't. It is you and your denier ilk that wish to take a scientific debate and phrase it in terms of a courtroom trial, not me.

All of 'your' evidence has been proven to be faked or worse.

According to who?

That amounsts to prosecutorial misconduct and will get you disbarred.

I'm not a lawyer and this isn't at trial you ignorant twit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Cap and Trade requires businesses to BUY permission allotments from a "central authority" to both create and then use energy.

First of all, not all proposals have the allotments being auctioned by government. I favor 100% of them being distributed for free, but last I checked the proposal in motion is 80%.

Second of all, you are confusing a tax with a fee for use.

A fee for use is to cover products or services the government provides such as National Parks or a toll to use a national highway.

The government won't be providing anything for the carbon credit tax. You can manipulate the semantics til the cows come home, and it will still be a massive tax.

And pray tell me which beneficiaries are slated to get free carbon credits?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well according to the Courts in California they are the same.

"In 2004, the city of San Diego imposed a business tax-processing fee of $25, in order to cover tax collection costs and alleviate some of the pain from the budget deficit. That’s right– a processing fee to pay a tax. Last week, a state appeals court found that practice to be in violation of the California constitution.

The fee structure was an attempt to work around Prop. 218, which ensures any new taxes or tax increases must be approved by the voters. The fee was charged to all businesses, from large corporations to farmer’s market booths to rental properties."

So there you go. Fee is another word used by the governments involved to say tax.....when they aren't allowed to say tax.

Cap and Trade requires businesses to BUY permission allotments from a "central authority" to both create and then use energy.

First of all, not all proposals have the allotments being auctioned by government. I favor 100% of them being distributed for free, but last I checked the proposal in motion is 80%.

Second of all, you are confusing a tax with a fee for use.

What's the name of that case? I seriously doubt they declared ALL fees to be taxes. In this particular case its obviously not a fee for use because the businesses paying the fee don't get anything in return.

And pray tell me which beneficiaries are slated to get free carbon credits?

Industry. Take two power plants both making the same amount of power. Both get the same size free allotment from Uncle Sam. One is a nuclear plant and one is fossil fuel. The fossil fuel plant needs to buy extra carbon credits, the nuclear plant winds up with credits it doesn't need to use - so the nuclear plant sells its credits to the fossil fuel plant, thus profiting from its smaller carbon footprint.

Tis a gross oversimplification I'm sure but that's the general idea.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A fee for use is to cover products or services the government provides such as National Parks or a toll to use a national highway.

Its also used for things which the government does not provide but which are owned equally by everyone - such as radio wave bands, and oil rights in the US EEZ of Gulf of Mexico

The government won't be providing anything for the carbon credit tax.

Sure it will. It will provide companies with the rights to emit carbon provided by the will of the people, just like the government provides radio companies the rights to broadcast on the airwaves owned by the people.

 

[westwall]

And here is where the fallacy of the trade rears its ugly head and proves that the agenda is all about money and how they can take it from you. Please show me anyplace where there is a reduction in pollution. You can't find it. Instead the conspirators have constructed a trade where the polluters can still pollute....it just costs them more for the priviledge.

The folks who pay for that in the long run is of course all of us. There is some critical thinkin for ya!

And for a few giggles...please show us the difference between a tax and a fee from the point of view of the money and the business or person paying it.

Well according to the Courts in California they are the same.

"In 2004, the city of San Diego imposed a business tax-processing fee of $25, in order to cover tax collection costs and alleviate some of the pain from the budget deficit. That’s right– a processing fee to pay a tax. Last week, a state appeals court found that practice to be in violation of the California constitution.

The fee structure was an attempt to work around Prop. 218, which ensures any new taxes or tax increases must be approved by the voters. The fee was charged to all businesses, from large corporations to farmer’s market booths to rental properties."

So there you go. Fee is another word used by the governments involved to say tax.....when they aren't allowed to say tax.

First of all, not all proposals have the allotments being auctioned by government. I favor 100% of them being distributed for free, but last I checked the proposal in motion is 80%.

Second of all, you are confusing a tax with a fee for use.

What's the name of that case? I seriously doubt they declared ALL fees to be taxes. In this particular case its obviously not a fee for use because the businesses paying the fee don't get anything in return.

And pray tell me which beneficiaries are slated to get free carbon credits?

Industry. Take two power plants both making the same amount of power. Both get the same size free allotment from Uncle Sam. One is a nuclear plant and one is fossil fuel. The fossil fuel plant needs to buy extra carbon credits, the nuclear plant winds up with credits it doesn't need to use - so the nuclear plant sells its credits to the fossil fuel plant, thus profiting from its smaller carbon footprint.

Tis a gross oversimplification I'm sure but that's the general idea.

 

[antagon]

i say the cap and trade is less about environment and government, as partisans respectively contend, and more about commoditization.

when i was in more of a typin mood i wrote a brief.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-case-for-environmentalism-5.html#post2169702

 

[SpidermanTuba]

And here is where the fallacy of the trade rears its ugly head and proves that the agenda is all about money and how they can take it from you. Please show me anyplace where there is a reduction in pollution. You can't find it. Instead the conspirators have constructed a trade where the polluters can still pollute....it just costs them more for the priviledge.

Are you seriously just asking me to provide evidence that the emissions of other pollutants have been successfully reduced through government intervention? Really?

SO2, nitrous oxide, CFC's, and urban smog just off the top off my head. In fact SO2 and NO emissions were reduced by cap and trade.

Your ignorance on this issue is astounding. I think you've not bothered to do even one iota of research -you're just making it up, whatever sounds right to you, you go with it!

 

[Big Fitz]

In fact SO2 and NO emissions were reduced by cap and trade.

Crap and tax hasn't been enacted yet, moron.

Secondly, SO2 emissions have been dropping since the Clean Air Act of 1970. It's gotten SO GOOD that they are trying to move the goal posts to zero emissions and discovering when that's the case, FORESTS of Scot Pine and other conifers become the dirtiest producers of the gas. Gonna cut all of Canada down now? You clean air morons seem to think the goal of clean air is to make it hypoallergenic or something. No SO2, no Methane, no CO2, no NO, no this, no that, no dyes, no flavors, no added sugar, no caffeine...

Jeebus! Just QUIT it already will ya? Let nature take it's course for once in a goddamn blue moon and quit trying to mother it to death.

 

[antagon]

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

 

[Big Fitz]

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

because history's track record has shown that often the regulation's worse than the disease.

 

[gslack]

And here is where the fallacy of the trade rears its ugly head and proves that the agenda is all about money and how they can take it from you. Please show me anyplace where there is a reduction in pollution. You can't find it. Instead the conspirators have constructed a trade where the polluters can still pollute....it just costs them more for the priviledge.

Are you seriously just asking me to provide evidence that the emissions of other pollutants have been successfully reduced through government intervention? Really?

SO2, nitrous oxide, CFC's, and urban smog just off the top off my head. In fact SO2 and NO emissions were reduced by cap and trade.

Your ignorance on this issue is astounding. I think you've not bothered to do even one iota of research -you're just making it up, whatever sounds right to you, you go with it!

Still no source for the 80% claim you made huh.... Typical of a known fake and liar like you. SpidermanTubby.... useless forum troll and juvenile delinquent...

Until you can show us some source for your claim of 80%, why should we waste our time on you?

 

[westwall]

No tub old boy.

As usual you ignore the comment and come up with an unrelated point. CO2 regulations have no mechanism for pollution reduction. That is about as simple as I can make for a astrophysisicist such as yourself.

Stay on point!

And here is where the fallacy of the trade rears its ugly head and proves that the agenda is all about money and how they can take it from you. Please show me anyplace where there is a reduction in pollution. You can't find it. Instead the conspirators have constructed a trade where the polluters can still pollute....it just costs them more for the priviledge.

Are you seriously just asking me to provide evidence that the emissions of other pollutants have been successfully reduced through government intervention? Really?

SO2, nitrous oxide, CFC's, and urban smog just off the top off my head. In fact SO2 and NO emissions were reduced by cap and trade.

Your ignorance on this issue is astounding. I think you've not bothered to do even one iota of research -you're just making it up, whatever sounds right to you, you go with it!

 

[westwall]

Because this isn't about pollution control.

Remember MTBE? It is a carcinogenic byproduct of the crude oil cracking process and it costs a ton of money to get rid of. Well a chemist at Chevron figured out that you could use it to oxygenate gasoline to clean up air emissions. Chevron lobbied the California legislature and the legislature passed very strict rules pertaining to the oxygenation of gasoline.

The net result was Chevron was now REQUIRED to use MTBE to oxygenate gasoline and a byproduct that had been a pain in the ass to deal with was now a profitable additive. The problems began almost immediately. Older cars started burning up at a alarming rate. In the Bay Area (where I lived at the time) it was not uncommon to hear about three carbeques in any one traffic report. The problem was finally pinpointed as the MTBE which in addition to be a carcinogen was found (actually they knew all along) to be very caustic as well and was eating the fuel systems up in the older cars.

Additionally it was found that the MTBE was polluting the groundwater. And to make matters worse it was far more difficult to get out of the groundwater than they ever imagined. So finally the California Air Resources Board was required to listen to the scientists who had warned them all along that this was going to happen and they removed MTBE as an oxygenate. But by then the damage had been done. Thousands of water wells around the state of California and Nevada have been closed because they are poisoned by the very additive that did indeed clean the air but at a terrible cost.

Years from now people are going to start keeling over from the poisoned water but hey that's OK, Chevron made enough in that ten year period to pay all the lawsuits that are sure to follow...they hope.

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

In fact SO2 and NO emissions were reduced by cap and trade.

Crap and tax hasn't been enacted yet, moron.

Cap and trade has been used for SO2 and NO emissions since 1990. I would highly suggest that you learn the basic facts related to the argument you are in before you go off calling other people names, that way you avoid looking like the total and complete utter brain dead poser you are.

No SO2, no Methane, no CO2, no NO, no this, no that, no dyes, no flavors, no added sugar, no caffeine...

Jeebus! Just QUIT it already will ya?

Why are you talking to yourself?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

In fact SO2 and NO emissions were reduced by cap and trade.

Crap and tax hasn't been enacted yet, moron.

Cap and trade has been used for SO2 and NO emissions since 1995. I would highly suggest that you learn the basic facts related to the argument you are in before you go off calling other people names, that way you avoid looking like the total and complete utter brain dead poser you are.

No SO2, no Methane, no CO2, no NO, no this, no that, no dyes, no flavors, no added sugar, no caffeine...

Jeebus! Just QUIT it already will ya?

Why are you talking to yourself?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

the US has implemented a cap and trade targeting acid rain with success. but you've just lauded it; now you know how it was affected.

have you considered that it is paranoia that urges you to read armageddon into every policy like chicken little?

because history's track record has shown that often the regulation's worse than the disease.

Do you have any actual examples to support your statement, or is it only your opponents that are required to justify what they say?