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

[ReillyT]

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."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.

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]

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]

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.

Fifty-two percent (52%) of all adults say it is more important to keep the cost of energy as low as possible than it is to develop clean, environmentally friendly sources of energy. But 41% disagree and say developing cleaner, greener energy sources is the priority.
Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

 

[wimpy77]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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......

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]

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 — 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.