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

[cmaddog111]

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.

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

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TallTexan]

Note to the unknowing:

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

 

[roper1975]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

Maybe we could all go in on it together.

USMB Enterprises
Gunther "Gunny" McGunnery, CEO

 

[Navy1960]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

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.

Once again, saying that there is too much of something does not imply that there isn't an amount that is too little.

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.