CAP AND TRADE - Coming to your state soon?

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

You cannot prove the Sun will come up in the morning.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Not to mention, you can't prove WHO in particular caused harm. You know, if this was a consumer protection case, you could neither find a source of harm, let alone a perpetrator, getting the case thrown out of court.

You can't prove culpability when you can't prove direct harm.

It isn't. Its science. Why do deniers insist on framing scientific debates in legal terms?

 

[Big Fitz]

Not to mention, you can't prove WHO in particular caused harm. You know, if this was a consumer protection case, you could neither find a source of harm, let alone a perpetrator, getting the case thrown out of court.

You can't prove culpability when you can't prove direct harm.

It isn't. Its science. Why do deniers insist on framing scientific debates in legal terms?

Because the "expert witnesses" are trying to use fraud as science to push laws to take people's freedom away. I dunno... seems patently obvious to many.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Fake, what do you think a carbon tax is?

Its not a carbon tax. A carbon tax would involve industry making payments to government. In cap and trade, credits are distributed by government for free, and then the recipients can trade them amongst themselves.

1. IF they can trade for carbon credits or trade their excess into cash. What will be the incentive for the largest and more successful market managers to give up their cash cow if a viable alternative to fossil fuels comes along?

2. The operating costs, fines, and resulting penalties and tightening restrictions will force more and more consolidation of energy markets. Resulting in less choice, which will lead to prices being set by the whims of an ever shrinking number of companies. And this one of the problems with a monopoly.

3. With the early and wisest/more wealthy investors set to make the most money right away, and the markets set to make billions off the trades they oversee, and government set to make money off the regulating and enforcing of this, who will be able to stop this later when and or if a viable alternative shows up? Do you think after decades of this making billions for a great many they will suddenly just give it up? NO!

4. As the system generates more and more income for those on the top, we will find that no matter what we do CO2 will seem to increase ever more. Or the effects will be worse than we figured before or whatever reason you can think of they will have to tighten restrictions, fines, fees, and or rates of exchange will increase. THis is the very nature of business and these people are business men..

5. We are going to pay for a natural trace gas, and trust the benefactors of this Industry to tell us when or if its working.....

What's your solution? Oh, that's right, you don't think the problem even exists. So I fail to see how your opinion on whether or not a proposed solution is a particularly good solution actually matters.

 

[gslack]

Fake, what do you think a carbon tax is?

Its not a carbon tax. A carbon tax would involve industry making payments to government. In cap and trade, credits are distributed by government for free, and then the recipients can trade them amongst themselves.

1. IF they can trade for carbon credits or trade their excess into cash. What will be the incentive for the largest and more successful market managers to give up their cash cow if a viable alternative to fossil fuels comes along?

2. The operating costs, fines, and resulting penalties and tightening restrictions will force more and more consolidation of energy markets. Resulting in less choice, which will lead to prices being set by the whims of an ever shrinking number of companies. And this one of the problems with a monopoly.

3. With the early and wisest/more wealthy investors set to make the most money right away, and the markets set to make billions off the trades they oversee, and government set to make money off the regulating and enforcing of this, who will be able to stop this later when and or if a viable alternative shows up? Do you think after decades of this making billions for a great many they will suddenly just give it up? NO!

4. As the system generates more and more income for those on the top, we will find that no matter what we do CO2 will seem to increase ever more. Or the effects will be worse than we figured before or whatever reason you can think of they will have to tighten restrictions, fines, fees, and or rates of exchange will increase. THis is the very nature of business and these people are business men..

5. We are going to pay for a natural trace gas, and trust the benefactors of this Industry to tell us when or if its working.....

What's your solution? Oh, that's right, you don't think the problem even exists. So I fail to see how your opinion on whether or not a proposed solution is a particularly good solution actually matters.

Idiot can you read?

THe fact is the government will regulate this and enforce the penalties/fees as well as collect them.. You freakin half wit....

how old are you?

 

[westwall]

I suggest you read the legislation because as usual you speak with no knowledge.

Okay, so far little response here. Let's try a new tack.

In my opinion, Cap and Trade is an initiative proposed by the U.S. Federal Government for the purpose of imposing the largest tax ever known to humankind while further stripping away many of the unalienable rights, choices, options, and opportunities of the people.

Its not a tax. A tax is when one party pays money to the government and receives nothing in return. Cap & trade involves companies buying and selling the right to pollute - the transfer of money from one business to another. I fail to see how that's a "tax".

 

[westwall]

Once again you exibit your complete lack of knowledge how the real world works. Governments tax corporations, corporations then raise their prices on the products involved to compensate for that raise. Consumers (that's the little people) have to pay more for what they recieve. That is how taxes affect the little people. They pay more for less.

Remedial economics classes are in order for you as well.

Fake, what do you think a carbon tax is?

Its not a carbon tax. A carbon tax would involve industry making payments to government. In cap and trade, credits are distributed by government for free, and then the recipients can trade them amongst themselves.

1. IF they can trade for carbon credits or trade their excess into cash. What will be the incentive for the largest and more successful market managers to give up their cash cow if a viable alternative to fossil fuels comes along?

2. The operating costs, fines, and resulting penalties and tightening restrictions will force more and more consolidation of energy markets. Resulting in less choice, which will lead to prices being set by the whims of an ever shrinking number of companies. And this one of the problems with a monopoly.

3. With the early and wisest/more wealthy investors set to make the most money right away, and the markets set to make billions off the trades they oversee, and government set to make money off the regulating and enforcing of this, who will be able to stop this later when and or if a viable alternative shows up? Do you think after decades of this making billions for a great many they will suddenly just give it up? NO!

4. As the system generates more and more income for those on the top, we will find that no matter what we do CO2 will seem to increase ever more. Or the effects will be worse than we figured before or whatever reason you can think of they will have to tighten restrictions, fines, fees, and or rates of exchange will increase. THis is the very nature of business and these people are business men..

5. We are going to pay for a natural trace gas, and trust the benefactors of this Industry to tell us when or if its working.....

What's your solution? Oh, that's right, you don't think the problem even exists. So I fail to see how your opinion on whether or not a proposed solution is a particularly good solution actually matters.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Its amusing how you spout off random unrelated facts when you get confused.

Once again you exibit your complete lack of knowledge how the real world works. Governments tax corporations, corporations then raise their prices on the products involved to compensate for that raise. Consumers (that's the little people) have to pay more for what they recieve. That is how taxes affect the little people. They pay more for less.

Remedial economics classes are in order for you as well.

Fake, what do you think a carbon tax is?

Its not a carbon tax. A carbon tax would involve industry making payments to government. In cap and trade, credits are distributed by government for free, and then the recipients can trade them amongst themselves.

1. IF they can trade for carbon credits or trade their excess into cash. What will be the incentive for the largest and more successful market managers to give up their cash cow if a viable alternative to fossil fuels comes along?

2. The operating costs, fines, and resulting penalties and tightening restrictions will force more and more consolidation of energy markets. Resulting in less choice, which will lead to prices being set by the whims of an ever shrinking number of companies. And this one of the problems with a monopoly.

3. With the early and wisest/more wealthy investors set to make the most money right away, and the markets set to make billions off the trades they oversee, and government set to make money off the regulating and enforcing of this, who will be able to stop this later when and or if a viable alternative shows up? Do you think after decades of this making billions for a great many they will suddenly just give it up? NO!

4. As the system generates more and more income for those on the top, we will find that no matter what we do CO2 will seem to increase ever more. Or the effects will be worse than we figured before or whatever reason you can think of they will have to tighten restrictions, fines, fees, and or rates of exchange will increase. THis is the very nature of business and these people are business men..

5. We are going to pay for a natural trace gas, and trust the benefactors of this Industry to tell us when or if its working.....

What's your solution? Oh, that's right, you don't think the problem even exists. So I fail to see how your opinion on whether or not a proposed solution is a particularly good solution actually matters.

 

[gslack]

Its amusing how you spout off random unrelated facts when you get confused.

Once again you exibit your complete lack of knowledge how the real world works. Governments tax corporations, corporations then raise their prices on the products involved to compensate for that raise. Consumers (that's the little people) have to pay more for what they recieve. That is how taxes affect the little people. They pay more for less.

Remedial economics classes are in order for you as well.

Its not a carbon tax. A carbon tax would involve industry making payments to government. In cap and trade, credits are distributed by government for free, and then the recipients can trade them amongst themselves.



What's your solution? Oh, that's right, you don't think the problem even exists. So I fail to see how your opinion on whether or not a proposed solution is a particularly good solution actually matters.

TRoll all you want junior you are done.... You are busted... Fake ass internet bullshit artist....

 

[westwall]

Would you care to support that statement. In every historical survey of the MWP food production was greatly enhanced and because of that it was a time of real prosperity. Wars were of shorter duration and more limited goals do to the simple fact that people had what they needed so the wars were mainly fought as a means of personal advancement on the part of the gentry and not because of some grand political strategy, I am of course not counting the Crusades as they were a Church thing, however they were more apt to occur because the production of food in Europe was greater so the excess could be used to support the war overseas.

Now lets have a global cooling period like what was witnessed after the Tambora eruption of 1816 and then you will begin to see some real problems. That resulted in over 65,000 deaths (from starvation) alone in Europe and does not take into account the deaths due to food riots etc.

Nope, sorry Old Fraud, the historical record doesn't back up your contentions.

A rise of a few degrees will almost certainly result in a dieoff of a significant portion of humanity. But it will not be detrimental to everyone. Drill, baby, Drill.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you care to support that statement. In every historical survey of the MWP food production was greatly enhanced and because of that it was a time of real prosperity. Wars were of shorter duration and more limited goals do to the simple fact that people had what they needed so the wars were mainly fought as a means of personal advancement on the part of the gentry and not because of some grand political strategy, I am of course not counting the Crusades as they were a Church thing, however they were more apt to occur because the production of food in Europe was greater so the excess could be used to support the war overseas.

Now lets have a global cooling period like what was witnessed after the Tambora eruption of 1816 and then you will begin to see some real problems. That resulted in over 65,000 deaths (from starvation) alone in Europe and does not take into account the deaths due to food riots etc.

Nope, sorry Old Fraud, the historical record doesn't back up your contentions.

A rise of a few degrees will almost certainly result in a dieoff of a significant portion of humanity. But it will not be detrimental to everyone. Drill, baby, Drill.

This is true. The record shows that there have been eras when the Earth has been much warmer over a prolonged period than now and there have been eras when the Earth has been much cooler.

Different species adapt better to climate change than others, but humankind has quite handily survived ice ages and perpetual tropic or desert heat.

Still, the record shows that overall, for both man and beast, warmer is far better than colder.

Seems to me that the evidence is becoming increasingly compelling that trying to change our climate is not only futile but is counter productive for the benefit of humankind.

I am ready to vote that our resources will be better used to help humankind better adapt to inevitable climate change and many are needlessly squandered when poured into almost certainly futile attempts to change the climate.

 

[westwall]

I have certainly been confused at various times in my life...but tell me how do even exist when you are in such a constant state of bewilderment?

Its amusing how you spout off random unrelated facts when you get confused.

Once again you exibit your complete lack of knowledge how the real world works. Governments tax corporations, corporations then raise their prices on the products involved to compensate for that raise. Consumers (that's the little people) have to pay more for what they recieve. That is how taxes affect the little people. They pay more for less.

Remedial economics classes are in order for you as well.

Its not a carbon tax. A carbon tax would involve industry making payments to government. In cap and trade, credits are distributed by government for free, and then the recipients can trade them amongst themselves.



What's your solution? Oh, that's right, you don't think the problem even exists. So I fail to see how your opinion on whether or not a proposed solution is a particularly good solution actually matters.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I have certainly been confused at various times in my life...but tell me how do even exist when you are in such a constant state of bewilderment?

Its amusing how you spout off random unrelated facts when you get confused.

Once again you exibit your complete lack of knowledge how the real world works. Governments tax corporations, corporations then raise their prices on the products involved to compensate for that raise. Consumers (that's the little people) have to pay more for what they recieve. That is how taxes affect the little people. They pay more for less.
Remedial economics classes are in order for you as well.

Just please explain to me how what you said changes the fact that cap and trade is not a tax, and how you thought that me explaining to you it was not a tax somehow implied that I thought corporations ate all their tax hikes.

 

[gslack]

I have certainly been confused at various times in my life...but tell me how do even exist when you are in such a constant state of bewilderment?

Its amusing how you spout off random unrelated facts when you get confused.

Just please explain to me how what you said changes the fact that cap and trade is not a tax, and how you thought that me explaining to you it was not a tax somehow implied that I thought corporations ate all their tax hikes.

FIrst retard your definition of tax is ignorant to the extreme. A tax in our countries use regards a fee placed upon the citizenry ( you and I), intended to pay for services and infrastructure/costs/expenses inherent in government function....

Understand that junior? It means a tax is how we pay for government. At least thats what its supposed to be....

So as westwal said governments tax us and corporations/businesses. THe corporations/businesses transfer the costs of those taxes onto the consumer (you and I) through raising prices, or rationing the quantities per unit (shrinking the can size of canned food for example)..

Follow that? I hope so I mean I think I made it easy enough even for a astrophysics PHD candidate to follow.....

Now cap and trade legislation forces companies/corporations to limit their CO2 emissions by government enforced restrictions. Any violations or going over their limit will result in a fine.

Got it?

Okay lets go to wikki now....

Emissions trading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emissions trading
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Carbon market" redirects here. For the Philippines tourist attraction, see Carbon Market.
See also: Carbon emission trading, Personal carbon trading, and carbon offset


A coal power plant in Germany. Due to emissions trading, coal may become a less competitive fuel than other options.
Emissions trading (also known as cap and trade) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.
A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society.[1]
There are active trading programs in several air pollutants. For greenhouse gases the largest is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.[2] In the United States there is a national market to reduce acid rain and several regional markets in nitrogen oxides.[3] Markets for other pollutants tend to be smaller and more localized.

now please try and act like an adult and do some reading on this... I am tired of your ignorance and your attempts to lie and cover it up are just intolerable.... Either learn about it or shut the fuck up!

 

[Foxfyre]

Fake, what do you think a carbon tax is?

Its not a carbon tax. A carbon tax would involve industry making payments to government. In cap and trade, credits are distributed by government for free, and then the recipients can trade them amongst themselves.

Cap and Trade requires businesses to BUY permission allotments from a "central authority" to both create and then use energy. It is essentially a double tax. And it isn't free.

Once the permissions are bought, they acquire value and can be traded on the open market. Not a whole lot different than a finite number of liquor licenses issed in a particular jurisdiction.

It is a tax in every sense of the word and will have such far reaching implications it will be the largest and most insidious tax ever imposed on a people.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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]

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.

Not to mention, you can't prove WHO in particular caused harm. You know, if this was a consumer protection case, you could neither find a source of harm, let alone a perpetrator, getting the case thrown out of court.

You can't prove culpability when you can't prove direct harm.

It isn't.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

A rise of a few degrees will almost certainly result in a dieoff of a significant portion of humanity. But it will not be detrimental to everyone. Drill, baby, Drill.

"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age" – ecologist Kenneth Watt.

I think we could use a few degrees of warming now that we are 11 degrees colder now than we were in 1970.

tell me another lie.

If you are referring to global average annual mean temperature you are woefully mistaken.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Not to mention, you can't prove WHO in particular caused harm. You know, if this was a consumer protection case, you could neither find a source of harm, let alone a perpetrator, getting the case thrown out of court.

You can't prove culpability when you can't prove direct harm.

It isn't. Its science. Why do deniers insist on framing scientific debates in legal terms?

Because the "expert witnesses" are trying to use fraud as science to push laws to take people's freedom away. I dunno... seems patently obvious to many.

I have yet to see any actual evidence of widespread fraud.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.