Cap and trade Questions

What will cap and trade do, well that's the big question isn't it, for starters lets talk about the overall goal of the bill to reduce Co2 output to the point where we make an impact on "Global Warming" The EPA estimates that is ALL the programs work as promised and if EVERY nation adopts this policy this bill will impact global temps by approx. .02 degree's in 100 years. So given the fact that China and India do not plan to be a part of this plan, the overall mission of the bill is completely shot down. So lets look at costs. There are many examples of energy costs and how they effect jobs, but the best way to look at this is to look at where it has been tried, Europe, and Ca.....

Europe has already hit a few bumps with its program. There's the Dutch silicon carbide maker that calls itself the greenest such plant in the world, but now can't afford to run full-time; the French cement workers who fear they're going to lose jobs to Morocco, which doesn't have to meet the European guidelines; and the German homeowners who pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did before -- even as their utility companies earn record profits.

In some ways, Europe's program has been a success. It covers 45 percent of the continent's emissions, 10,000 companies and 27 European Union countries. It has built registries that list carbon dioxide emissions for every major plant.

In other ways, the approach has been a bureaucratic morass with a host of unexpected and costly side effects and a much smaller effect on carbon emissions than planned. And many companies complain that it is unfair.

Consider the plight of Kollo Holding's factory in the Netherlands, which makes silicon carbide, a material used as an industrial abrasive and lining for high-temperature furnaces and kilns. Its managers like to think of their plant as an ecological standout: They use waste gases to generate energy and have installed the latest pollution-control equipment.

But Europe's program has driven electricity prices so high that the facility routinely shuts down for part of the day to save money on power. Although demand for its products is strong, the plant has laid off 40 of its 130 employees and trimmed production. Two customers have turned to cheaper imports from China, which is not covered by Europe's costly regulations.
Europe's Problems Color U.S. Plans to Curb Carbon Gases - washingtonpost.com

That from the Washington Post, hardly a bastion of Republican thinking...

Emissions did fall 3% in 2008, but experts on both sides agree that that was largely due to the recession, which has reduced industrial output and energy usage.

Meanwhile, energy prices for end users have risen sharply. From 2004 to 2007, household energy costs rose by 16% on average in the 25 EU countries and industrial rates rose by 32%, according to the European Commission.

Those prices have meant windfalls for some companies. CEI's Ebell cites as an example how the German utilities used their influence to wrangle more allowances than the automakers.

"One utility immediately raised their rate 70%" after ETS was implemented, Ebell said. "But they had more credits than they needed to cover their emissions for that year, so they sold them to automakers. So the (utility's) shareholders got two windfalls: one from raising the rates and one from selling the excess credits."

Cap-and-trade fans argue that Congress' bill would avoid such situations. Besides, they argue, cap-and-trade is the only politically possible way to enact a carbon reduction plan, since Big Business supports it.

Europe's Cap-And-Trade Scheme A Cautionary Tale For The U.S. - Yahoo! News

According to official figures, around 12 percent of the working population of the European Union (EU) is unemployed. Eighteen million European citizens, 5 million of them under the age of twenty-five, are officially looking for work. Relevant research institutes around Europe inform us that the number of unemployed is continuing to rise. It is estimated that, over the next two years, at least another half million people will join the ranks of the unemployed.

European unemployment: myths and realities | Challenge | Find Articles at BNET

Has anyone noticed recently Ca. has started to issue IOU's because they are in such bad financial shape and this is the model we wish to follow for the entire nation. I think the person that said it best about the cost of cap and trade was out own president....

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers."


Senator Barack Obama
Speaking on his energy policies
San Francisco Chronicle
January 17, 2008

Need I say more.. to the Administration a tax is not a tax unless you call it one. but tell that to the people who have to pay more for basically everything.
 
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?

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.
 
i didn't say it was. I was responding to the assertion that building practices should be market driven. they shouldn't be. As i said building codes are a matter of public safety not the market economy. As such building codes should always favor the best construction methods or those that produce stronger safer homes. that these same better practices would result in homes that are more energy efficient is a bonus.



That's being a little flip isn't it. Building codes are generally a state/ local issue but most states follow the same codes. it would not be a major deal to have all states adopt codes favoring better building practices. it would cost nothing as states and towns already have building inspectors and would not need to hire more.

The benefit of this change would be a lesser dependence on foreign oil and an that would provide a buffer for our economy. Are you saying that these are bad things?



i am not supporting building code changes to stop global warming. i support them because the public would benefit from safer, stronger buildings with a benefit of increased energy savings.

I would rather this country be less dependent on foreign energy sources, wouldn't you?




i already said that there would be no need for a federal inspector. And really in this day and age could you tell me why a better built, safer stronger house that reduces heating and cooling costs by up to 50% would need any help being sold? In fact i bet such a home would sell for a premium

Please remember building codes are not retroactive. Obviously homes and buildings built to today's standards would be grandfathered.

i don't understand why you oppose such a common sense measure as a change in building codes when the benefits are so clear.

and remember that I oppose cap and trade and have from the onset. the issue of building codes may be slightly of topic but it is relevant to the overall strategy to reduce our dependency on foreign energy. that building code changes result in much lower energy use is a significant bonus.

This is a global warming bill.

This is not a housing bill, the clause is merely piggy-backed.

And there is no indication that older homes would be grandfathered. That is the actual point. All homes would require changes to conform- or could not be sold.
 
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?

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.


Absolutely.... :clap2::clap2:

It's only a tool for them to use to grab more power and control, and therefore, more money. Many of those on the left pushing this bill are heavilty invested in carbon credit trading and 'green' energies. They're set to make a killing on this. It's always about money, their intensions are never altruistic for the betterment of anything but their bank accounts.
 
1. It will, regardless of how it is structured, have a negative economic impact on every American household and thus our economy.

2. It won't make a bit of real difference unless everyone is involved in such reductions. Exclusion of the big emitters makes our "economic sacrifice" literally worthless in terms of the supposed overall goal of cutting CO2 worldwide.

Because of those two points alone, we should demand that such legislation be voted down. I think the focus on CO2 is a load of unscientific nonsense, but politically that has no legs at this time. But what does have legs is the argument summed up in those two points and opponents of cap-and-trade should use them (and Feldstein's name) to make the argument against the pending legislation.

Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University, president emeritus of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research.............
Feldstein: Cap-and-Trade a "Bad Idea" - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

Now before anyone just goes crazy and says well look at the source!! please consider the fact that I pull my references from all sources and as the professor is worth noting I could care less what the site name is.

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 report concludes 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 from elsewhere in Spain's economy.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/80501-cap-and-trade-questions-2.html

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHZdLZLqIH4&feature=PlayList&p=93F741422528B079&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2]YouTube - Spain Loses Jobs by Going Green[/ame]
 
Here is what John Dingell has to say about what cap and trade is..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgUHol_WkDk&feature=PlayList&p=93F741422528B079&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1]YouTube - Dingell: Cap-and-trade a big tax[/ame]
 
in short WJ, under cap and tax the price of everything (and I do mean everything) that uses any type of fossil fuel derived energy in its production and distribution will rise considerably.

We shall see. I wouldn't take your word for it though. You are a fear mongerer.

I emailed Obama yesterday that he/they have done a horrible job selling Cap and Trade to America. Seems more like they rushed it thru over the holidays and the righties are saying that its going to cost each person $1500. The Dems have the majorities now, so the media has to listen to them and report what they say. Why are they not denying the rumors, if they are rumors?

But this may be just another lie from the right. I hope so. Then they'll have even less credibility, if that is even possible.

I don't think Republicans will ever change. They just hope/wait for the Dems to fuck up and thats how they win. It isn't like the GOP learned their lesson and now will act better. Instead they stick to their guns, insist tax breaks work and continue to say Dems raised taxes, even if they didn't.

And the bankers spent $9 trillion in the last 8 months, starting on Bush's watch skull. $9 trillion!!! You're bitching about $700 bill tarp and $700 stimulus and not $9 trillion? Oldest trick in the book. Distract you with the left and steal with the right. And then in 4 years you'll say Obama doubled the debt, when in fact the bankers did it, and they did it half on Bush's watch and half on Obama's, but you'll say it was Obama, I'll say it was Bush, and the bankers will still own all of us and all of this.

Voters are morons.

Congressional Budget Office (5 June, 2009) Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: HR 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 21, 2009. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from H.R. 2454

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454&tab=summary

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454
 
Last edited:
Response by Firms and Households. A key factor in determining the price of an allowance is how quickly and cheaply firms and households can decrease CO2emissions by reducing their use of fossil fuels (either directly or indirectly via the goods and services that they consume). The easier it is for firms and households to cut their emissions, the lower the allowance price would need to be to reach a given cap. Available economic models differ considerably in their estimates of how much emissions would decrease for a given allowance price (and its implied effect on fossil fuel prices) because they make different assumptions about the long-run ability of businesses to substitute low-carbon fuels and more efficient technology for high-carbon fuels; the long-run sensitivity of energy usage to higher energy prices; and the speed at which those responses unfold. CBO generated a “middle of the road” response to allowance prices by examining available peer-reviewed models and calculating an average response, measured across multiple models and across different types of end users (households, electric utilities, and manufacturers, for example).

CBO estimates that, in 2015, a price on emissions of CO2that raised the average price of end-use energy produced from fossil fuels by 10 percent would induce about a 5 percent reduction in such emissions. By 2025, a similar increase in price would result in a 9 percent reduction in emissions, with the response continuing to increase over time at a gradually decreasing rate.

You didn't hear about that part of the CBO report though, I'm sure, all you heard was what the tax costs were and none of the actual costs. Let me explain something to you, a tax. is a TAX you can choose not to call it one, however, if you pay for it as a value added tax, just because it makes you feel better not to call it one does not make the economic impact any less. !!!!
 
in short WJ, under cap and tax the price of everything (and I do mean everything) that uses any type of fossil fuel derived energy in its production and distribution will rise considerably.

We shall see. I wouldn't take your word for it though. You are a fear mongerer.

I emailed Obama yesterday that he/they have done a horrible job selling Cap and Trade to America. Seems more like they rushed it thru over the holidays and the righties are saying that its going to cost each person $1500. The Dems have the majorities now, so the media has to listen to them and report what they say. Why are they not denying the rumors, if they are rumors?

But this may be just another lie from the right. I hope so. Then they'll have even less credibility, if that is even possible.

I don't think Republicans will ever change. They just hope/wait for the Dems to fuck up and thats how they win. It isn't like the GOP learned their lesson and now will act better. Instead they stick to their guns, insist tax breaks work and continue to say Dems raised taxes, even if they didn't.

And the bankers spent $9 trillion in the last 8 months, starting on Bush's watch skull. $9 trillion!!! You're bitching about $700 bill tarp and $700 stimulus and not $9 trillion? Oldest trick in the book. Distract you with the left and steal with the right. And then in 4 years you'll say Obama doubled the debt, when in fact the bankers did it, and they did it half on Bush's watch and half on Obama's, but you'll say it was Obama, I'll say it was Bush, and the bankers will still own all of us and all of this.

Voters are morons.

Congressional Budget Office (5 June, 2009) Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: HR 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 21, 2009. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from H.R. 2454

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454&tab=summary

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454


The more I learn the more I like. :lol:
 
We shall see. I wouldn't take your word for it though. You are a fear mongerer.

I emailed Obama yesterday that he/they have done a horrible job selling Cap and Trade to America. Seems more like they rushed it thru over the holidays and the righties are saying that its going to cost each person $1500. The Dems have the majorities now, so the media has to listen to them and report what they say. Why are they not denying the rumors, if they are rumors?

But this may be just another lie from the right. I hope so. Then they'll have even less credibility, if that is even possible.

I don't think Republicans will ever change. They just hope/wait for the Dems to fuck up and thats how they win. It isn't like the GOP learned their lesson and now will act better. Instead they stick to their guns, insist tax breaks work and continue to say Dems raised taxes, even if they didn't.

And the bankers spent $9 trillion in the last 8 months, starting on Bush's watch skull. $9 trillion!!! You're bitching about $700 bill tarp and $700 stimulus and not $9 trillion? Oldest trick in the book. Distract you with the left and steal with the right. And then in 4 years you'll say Obama doubled the debt, when in fact the bankers did it, and they did it half on Bush's watch and half on Obama's, but you'll say it was Obama, I'll say it was Bush, and the bankers will still own all of us and all of this.

Voters are morons.

Congressional Budget Office (5 June, 2009) Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: HR 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 21, 2009. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from H.R. 2454

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454&tab=summary

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2454


The more I learn the more I like. :lol:

I'm glad you like. It does no good to wade through bad translations when the original documents are available.
 
It actually reenforces the very points I have been making when it comes to what this bill will do to the economy. If someone would take the time to read it, other than pick out the one line as it applies to costs...


A cap-and-trade program, like a tax on CO2 emissions, could raise a significant
amount of revenue
because the value of the allowances created under such a program
would probably be substantial. As the cap specified in legislation became
more stringent over time, the value of the allowances would grow. A key decision
for policymakers is whether to sell all of the emission allowances, thereby capturing
their value in the form of federal revenue that could be used in various ways, or to
give some of them away (for example, to companies that produce or use fossil
fuels).

Price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because
they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and
households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that
reduced CO2 emissions. Those increases, however, would impose a larger burden,
relative to their income, on low-income households than on high-income households.


Policymakers would face trade-offs in deciding how to use the value of the allowances.
For example, they might sell the allowances and use the revenue to reduce
existing taxes that discourage the productive use of capital and labor. That strategy
could lessen the overall cost that a cap-and-trade program would impose on the
economy but would do little to offset the burden that the price increases would
impose on low-income households. Alternatively, policymakers might choose to
use the revenue raised by selling allowances to provide support for low-income
households—a strategy that would lessen the burden on low-income households
but that could have somewhat higher economywide costs. Thus, policymakers will
face trade-offs in deciding how to best use the value of the allowances. A policy of
giving the allowances away to companies would preclude either reducing the
economywide costs or lessening the burden on low-income households.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10018/03-12-ClimateChange_Testimony.pdf

So what in the CBO report leads you to believe it's not a massive TAX increase? when the CBO even shows that it's a tax. I suggest those that are supporting this go back to Dr. Mann's "hockey stick" and the IPCC for their data at least thats made up enough to scare people. When you raise taxes to such a degree in an economic down turn YOU DO NOT CREATE JOBS!. This scheme has been tried in Europe and is a disaster of the first order, even John Dingell from MI. says its a massive tax. There is NOTHING in this bill that I cannot call into question and show as flawed. I'd suggest to my democratic friends they should choose a battle more worthy and helpful to the American people than one that goes directly against the principles even they stand for...
 
Congressional Budget Office (5 June, 2009) Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: HR 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 21, 2009. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from H.R. 2454

H.R. 2454 - Summary: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

GovTrack: H.R. 2454: Text of Legislation, Engrossed in House


The more I learn the more I like. :lol:
Since it's physically impossible for you to have actually read any significant amount of the bill, you have actually learned nothing.

I suppose, you'll still be blaming Booooosh when this bill, should it become law, greatly exasperates the job loss problem, as more and more manufacturers flee this tyranny and take their jobs overseas in response.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3njsgrCuCc]YouTube - Cap And Trade - The Global Warming Fraud Continues[/ame]

sealy, you live in MI. I want you to listen in this video what your rep's are saying in it. from Mi.
 
I have read that some people think when cheaper energy is available that electric rates will go down. I have never ever seen electric rates go down ever period each year my eletric bills have gone up even though usage has been relatively the same. if cap and trade is implemented would this not cause inflation? and if a electric company is getting used to a flow of money why would they lower rates? even when they get cheaper energy they would have to pay for the engineers and patent rights for years to come . if this gets implemented I do not forsee eletric rates going down ever period....I may be wrong but I have been alive way to long and have never seen energy prices drop they have steadily gone up...usually with lame excuses...and once the government is used to getting a certain flow of money why would the government want it to go down? it would be their cash cow so to speak....learn from your history people ....there is a reason that things made on the cheap sell for hundreds of dollars supplyt and demand is one the other is nessecity people need electricity so the rates will never go down from where they go up.....if you believe that rates will eventually go down I am totally amazed that you are that gullible
 
The larger and more obvious problem of these types of revenue scams that are supposed to result in a reduction of a behavior is that the government gets addicted to the revenue and when people do change their behavior revenue decreases, the government goes into withdrawal like all addicts and then has to come up with another even better fix (tax) that will replace the old one.
 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOcLUMjT2ag&feature=related]YouTube - Al Gore Slammed By Congress Over Carbon Tax Conflicts of Interest[/ame]
 
Congressional Budget Office (5 June, 2009) Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate: HR 2454 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 As ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 21, 2009. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from H.R. 2454

H.R. 2454 - Summary: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

GovTrack: H.R. 2454: Text of Legislation, Engrossed in House


The more I learn the more I like. :lol:
Since it's physically impossible for you to have actually read any significant amount of the bill, you have actually learned nothing.

I suppose, you'll still be blaming Booooosh when this bill, should it become law, greatly exasperates the job loss problem, as more and more manufacturers flee this tyranny and take their jobs overseas in response.

1. It won't cost jobs. Let them try to flee. That'll be great for their competition. And we'll tax them on the way out. And then they can sell their shit to Mexico, India, China or god forbid socialist Europe. :lol:

2. It'll create jobs

3. It won't cost individuals as much as you say

4. It was necessary

5. We found a way to pay for the Iraq war, we can find a way to get this done

6. And who owns the energy companies anyways? Aren't they public owned? Or are they owned like the Federal Reserve/Oil Companies/Media?


7. I see a lot of new green start up companies. That's good.
 

Forum List

Back
Top