With China and India building coal burning plants as fast as they can bring them on line....

[Hambone]

Seriously folks, the amount of new CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere annually by China and India from their new "clean" coal burning plants alone greatly surpasses any reductions from any dramatic steps the US could implement to reduce domestic emissions.

China has committed to building hundreds more in the coming years. India is builoding mega coal burners. The Chinese are also building clean nuke and wind production, but that is in addition to the coal burning revolution that is ongoing.

If you believe that CO2 is the driver of climate, don't you also believe that China and India alone are out of control and will more than offset any potential US efforts? Don't you also realize that for the US to cut emissions significantly enough to make a dent in CO2 production we would ruin our economy?

It seems to me that instead of running around spending money and effort fighting a political battle that if won will ultimately destroy our competitve advantage in world markets, it would be sensible to plow everything into sequestration technology and alternate energy production?

I believe we need to become energy independent as a strategic imperative...... but far too much energy is being wasted on political nonsense. Businesses fail when they are beset with "paralysis through analysis".. Governments are not immune.

Forget about CO2. We can't do anything about it even if someone can actually prove it drives climate. Let's just get on with developing long term energy independence (which includes drilling into every oil field within reach in the short term) and developing sequestration technology in the event that CO2 does prove to be a significant driver of climate.

[superjames1992]

This has been one of my beefs about cutting back on CO2 emissions in the West. Despite whatever we do, China and India are going to outpace whatever the West does to curb CO2 emissions, so in the end CO2 emissions will continue to rise as China/India and the developing world industrializes. I saw that China emitted more CO2 than the US did last year, though per person, we obviously still trump them by a landslide.

[WeatherRusty]

Our goal has to be the development of alternative forms of energy production and improved means for energy distribution. Since we will require more and more energy into the future while keeping costs down, we will require a diverse mix of energy sources until some form of nuclear fusion comes online.

As long as fossil fuels remain artificially inexpensive, the private sector will not be incentivized to the development and utilization of alternatives. Thus the need for some system such as cap and trade to provide that incentive.

[LakeEffectKing]

Our goal has to be the development of alternative forms of energy production and improved means for energy distribution. Since we will require more and more energy into the future while keeping costs down, we will require a diverse mix of energy sources until some form of nuclear fusion comes online.

As long as fossil fuels remain artificially inexpensive, the private sector will not be incentivized to the development and utilization of alternatives. Thus the need for some system such as cap and trade to provide that incentive.

Ahh....breakthrough moment!! So this isn't really about saving the planet from tipping points (which several have supposedly already passed) Cap and trade is a scheme to force energy sources down a free society's throat, that obviously is not a priority to the majority of people in their daily life. I wonder why the politicians don't pursue that line of thought while presenting cap and trade? Thanks for the honesty.

It's funny, I just starting taking the bus into work, which I figure is going to save my family around 150 dollars/mo. And I'm all for keeping the amount of "real" pollution down....so it's a bit gratifying. And I'm a skeptic of AGW....meanwhile I have a co-worker who violently supports all that is Climate Change, she lives the same distance from work as I, has access to bus routes, but drives a 6 cylinder Dodge SUV to and from work, and when I told her about my new found transportation method to work and that she should try it....her only comment was..."and sit with all those stinky people??" ........ Symbolism.....

[Hambone]

Our goal has to be the development of alternative forms of energy production and improved means for energy distribution. Since we will require more and more energy into the future while keeping costs down, we will require a diverse mix of energy sources until some form of nuclear fusion comes online.

As long as fossil fuels remain artificially inexpensive, the private sector will not be incentivized to the development and utilization of alternatives. Thus the need for some system such as cap and trade to provide that incentive.

Which destroys our economy.

[LakeEffectKing]

Which destroys our economy.

I wouldn't say "destroy"....as I've commented before, that is quite an arbitrary term. But "negative impact" for common folk, certainly would not be really arguable unless you include the "saving from doom and gloom" risk assessment, which (with even the most drastic cuts in CO2 emissions proposed for the US) would have a net forcing (cooling) of about .001ºC

[WeatherRusty]

Which destroys our economy.

How does developing a diverse energy plan destroy the economy? I always have thought diversity to be a positive and a strength.

[Hambone]

I wouldn't say "destroy"....as I've commented before, that is quite an arbitrary term. But "negative impact" for common folk, certainly would not be really arguable unless you include the "saving from doom and gloom" risk assessment, which (with even the most drastic cuts in CO2 emissions proposed for the US) would have a net forcing (cooling) of about .001ºC

How is 9% unemployment and a continuing decline in housing value working for you? Anything that tips us negative at this time will ruin our fragile recovery.

Right now at a 3% GDP we don't return to pre recession job levels until 2015... that doesn't include new folks entering the market.

We can't afford anything that increases the cost of job creation at this time, or for the forseeable future. I'm a poli sci, econ, banker for what that's worth.

[LakeEffectKing]

How is 9% unemployment and a continuing decline in housing value working for you? Anything that tips us negative at this time will ruin our fragile recovery.

Right now at a 3% GDP we don't return to pre recession job levels until 2015... that doesn't include new folks entering the market.

We can't afford anything that increases the cost of job creation at this time, or for the forseeable future. I'm a poli sci, econ, banker for what that's worth.

I agree with you, that if we were to implement anything near to what cap and trade proposes at THIS time, it would certainly SUBSTANTIALLY impact the whole spectrum of our economy. Destroy? I don't know what that means to you, or anyone else, because it characterizes an undefined description and adds an embellishing quality to the description. Some people would say the economy is already "destroyed".

[Clifford]

It's funny, I just starting taking the bus into work, which I figure is going to save my family around 150 dollars/mo. And I'm all for keeping the amount of "real" pollution down....so it's a bit gratifying. And I'm a skeptic of AGW....meanwhile I have a co-worker who violently supports all that is Climate Change, she lives the same distance from work as I, has access to bus routes, but drives a 6 cylinder Dodge SUV to and from work, and when I told her about my new found transportation method to work and that she should try it....her only comment was..."and sit with all those stinky people??" ........ Symbolism.....

Have you looked up the actual fuel efficiency of your super-fuel-efficient bus?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation#US_Passenger_transportation

BTU per passenger-mile

---------------------------------------

Hybrid - 1,659

Commuter Light Rail - 2,996

Average Car - 3,512

Pickup - 3,944

Bus - 4,235

Several municipal transit systems report similar figures.

The problem is that while the buses may get hammered during Rush Hour, they also end up circling the city during off-peak hours with only a couple of passengers. And the transit systems are unable to use large buses during peak hours, then downsize to commuter vans during off-peak hours. A commuter system is ineffective if a person can't count on being able to catch the bus or train when it is needed.

[skierinvermont]

The U.S. still has the greatest per/capita emissions by far, which gives us the most room for improvement.

I also object to the assertion that it will ruin our economy. Yes huge carbon taxes implemented today would really slow economic growth maybe even spur another recession.

But we need to raise taxes anyways within the next 1-2 years. This is generally recognized by all mainstream economists, analysts, policy centers etc. It's not a political issue.. it's just a fact. Tax rates are at record low levels and it's not sustainable. We need to cut the budget and raise taxes. The IMF's recommendation is something like 2/3s spending cuts 1/3 tax hikes... I might have that reverse but you get the idea.

So perhaps one of the new taxes could be a carbon tax that starts out slowly and rises gradually with time. If we're going to raise taxes (which we must) it doesn't matter so much where the tax falls. Taxing carbon might actually be better than taxing income in the long run because it will help to get us off oil and carbon, which in the long run will be good as energy prices rise. Carter had the right idea 30 years ago.. we should have taxed oil.. the u.s. economy wouldn't use nearly as much oil today and wouldn't be as sensitive to the price of oil. Instead our economy is at the whim of global oil supply... a pinch in world oil supply can quickly trigger a u.s. recession.

[Clifford]

I also believe that decreasing our dependency on Petroleum Oil usage, and Petroleum imports would be a benefit to our economy. I.E. Keep more money in the USA, and spend less money building funky buildings in Abu-Dhabi.

In theory a high fuel tax would offset other taxes, giving no net tax increase, except that our Federal Government has troubles managing money.

What I've suggested is a 2 cent a month fuel tax (or perhaps a penny a month tax).

Every month increase the fuel tax by 1 or 2 cents.

12 or 24 cents a year.

60 cents or 1.20 in 5 years.

etc.

It would phase the tax in slowly.

I think the higher 2 cents a month tax would be best.

Eventually the tax would become high enough to truly encourage economy. And it would give the manufacturers, and those buying new cars time to economize.

One could really do it forever as over time the increases would eventually get swallowed up by inflation.

Perhaps a similar tax should be imposed on other energy sources, electricity & natural gas, much of which is also fossil fuel based.

One could give exceptions to certain business practices if one wants. Oregon has a PUC program in which commercial trucks pay mileage taxes, and do not pay fuel taxes. Similar business exemptions are possible if necessary assuming one could prevent fraud.

[nzucker]

Carter had the right idea 30 years ago.. we should have taxed oil.. the u.s. economy wouldn't use nearly as much oil today and wouldn't be as sensitive to the price of oil. Instead our economy is at the whim of global oil supply... a pinch in world oil supply can quickly trigger a u.s. recession.

Right...Carter and the Europeans had the right idea of attaching an artificial basement in oil prices through taxes so that infrastructure/lifestyle couldn't come to be based totally around inexpensive fuel prices until it became painfully impossible to live this way upon a sudden supply-and-demand/peak spike. They did this at a natural point after consumers had experienced the Saudi 1973 crisis/recession and thus become somewhat accustomed to such changes and transportation/design conditions. But of course Reagan wasn't going to hear of saving resources (remember he was also the one that silenced the AGW investigations that were going on under Carter...another reason I don't think Hansen was a big deal anyway, but we won't go there), so we became totally ill-accustomed to a low-petroleum society, cemented by the cultural vision of the mythical Texas gusher on the horizon....and now we're screwed! If we had followed the Europeans in tax structure, but using American free market entrepreneurship to find the wisest new energy sources/efficiency solutions, then we wouldn't have to worry about recessions based on feuding countries controlling 90% of the world's oil. Our economy would be better off despite higher energy prices, the exact thing we think is impeding us.

[ORH_wxman]

Going off oil is a total farce and a complete pipedream..."going off" meaning reducing it significantly and/or taxing it over the next decade. Its not sustainable in our economy. Unless you want to have like 40%+ poverty rate like third world countries.

We can gradually step down from it...but people who are pushing for the "no oil" economy are an absolute joke and have no clue how the economy runs or how the U.S. operates and generally have zero knowledge of the world commodity market. Its all a fantasy utopia. Is it our fault for operating that way? Yes probably...but the answer isn't to shut it off like a light switch...unless you want our country to go bankrupt and be much weaker in the military and eventually cede to being the most powerful country in the world.

The guilt trip mechanism is becoming an old and tiresome AGW extremist argument....a more productive argument would be on how to accurately step-down from oil and nat gas as a major source of energy and find out the most economical solution to all of this. These clown ideas of guilting the U.S. into "shutting off the oil" is mostly hyperbole and irrelevant propaganda.

[Clifford]

If you phased in the fuel taxes.... a few cents a month, most people wouldn't even notice it.

Initially, you would likely find that for every 2 cents a gallon taxes went up, fuel prices would go down by 1 cent due to reduced demand, with a net change of about 1 cent.

Then, what one needs to do is re-balance the taxes.

If you used to pay $10K in income taxes.... and now pay (on average) $10K in fuel taxes... then the income taxes should go to zero (on average). It then gives you the choice to purchase a fuel efficient vehicle and pay less in taxes if you so choose.

Of course sales taxes are somewhat regressive, and there will be some college professors who purchase Priuses... while those driving $500 junkers get pounded with additional taxes.

If one could create stability in fuel prices, there would be a benefit if letting people know what they should expect in he future.

[LakeEffectKing]

The U.S. still has the greatest per/capita emissions by far, which gives us the most room for improvement.

I also object to the assertion that it will ruin our economy. Yes huge carbon taxes implemented today would really slow economic growth maybe even spur another recession.

But we need to raise taxes anyways within the next 1-2 years. This is generally recognized by all mainstream economists, analysts, policy centers etc. It's not a political issue.. it's just a fact. Tax rates are at record low levels and it's not sustainable. We need to cut the budget and raise taxes. The IMF's recommendation is something like 2/3s spending cuts 1/3 tax hikes... I might have that reverse but you get the idea.

So perhaps one of the new taxes could be a carbon tax that starts out slowly and rises gradually with time. If we're going to raise taxes (which we must) it doesn't matter so much where the tax falls. Taxing carbon might actually be better than taxing income in the long run because it will help to get us off oil and carbon, which in the long run will be good as energy prices rise. Carter had the right idea 30 years ago.. we should have taxed oil.. the u.s. economy wouldn't use nearly as much oil today and wouldn't be as sensitive to the price of oil. Instead our economy is at the whim of global oil supply... a pinch in world oil supply can quickly trigger a u.s. recession.

LOFL!

You are out of your tree! All you are going to do is piss off more and more people. (Is that really what you want, is more people scraping even more?) NYS taxes coupled with every other tax out there that has been increased has done NOTHING BUT get us in the hole we are in. Companies are leaving, loop holes will be found to those who stay, and for what?? To give bailout (tax money) to companies "deemed" to big to fail?

Government sucks at efficiency....period.

[skierinvermont]

LOFL!

You are out of your tree! All you are going to do is piss off more and more people. (Is that really what you want, is more people scraping even more?) NYS taxes coupled with every other tax out there that has been increased has done NOTHING BUT get us in the hole we are in. Companies are leaving, loop holes will be found to those who stay, and for what?? To give bailout (tax money) to companies "deemed" to big to fail?

Government sucks at efficiency....period.

This isn't even a political issue anymore. All the non-partisan think tanks say the U.S. simply must raise taxes. Tax rates are at record low levels and the government is spending nearly twice as much as it gets in revenue (tax rates haven't been lower since the 1920s). Unless you want to just completely get rid of SS and Medicare and let the elderly fend for themselves in the streets, you need to raise taxes.

The exact ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts is debatable of course. Do we close the budget with 2/3s tax hikes, 1/3 spending cuts or the other way around? That's debatable, but the fact is that without tax hikes, you will have to completely destroy essential government services which will radically alter the well being of many many Americans.

[WeatherRusty]

I am at a total loss for words except to say that with the defeatist attitude on display by some here we are screwed. The economy is destined to collapse, the environment will continue to deteriorate and people in the future will scratch their heads wondering why. We will never learn.

[skierinvermont]

Going off oil is a total farce and a complete pipedream..."going off" meaning reducing it significantly and/or taxing it over the next decade. Its not sustainable in our economy. Unless you want to have like 40%+ poverty rate like third world countries.

We can gradually step down from it...but people who are pushing for the "no oil" economy are an absolute joke and have no clue how the economy runs or how the U.S. operates and generally have zero knowledge of the world commodity market. Its all a fantasy utopia. Is it our fault for operating that way? Yes probably...but the answer isn't to shut it off like a light switch...unless you want our country to go bankrupt and be much weaker in the military and eventually cede to being the most powerful country in the world.

The guilt trip mechanism is becoming an old and tiresome AGW extremist argument....a more productive argument would be on how to accurately step-down from oil and nat gas as a major source of energy and find out the most economical solution to all of this. These clown ideas of guilting the U.S. into "shutting off the oil" is mostly hyperbole and irrelevant propaganda.

I don't think 'going off oil' is seriously considered by many people at all.. everything I've ever read envisions a gradual decline in use and even then it is still necessary to use a lot of it. The bigger issue is coal use for power anyways and there are lots of realistic and not too expensive ways to make progress there. Solar and wind can fulfill a large chunk of power demand although probably never all of it. They're both close to parity in price, in fact they can be cheaper in certain markets. Nuclear's role could also be expanded realistically. And with whatever fossil fuel use remains, it's becoming much more realistic and cost-effective to trap the CO2 underground or pump it into oil fields to increase well pressure. It's still a little expensive but not inordinately so.

[skierinvermont]

If you phased in the fuel taxes.... a few cents a month, most people wouldn't even notice it.

Initially, you would likely find that for every 2 cents a gallon taxes went up, fuel prices would go down by 1 cent due to reduced demand, with a net change of about 1 cent.

Then, what one needs to do is re-balance the taxes.

If you used to pay $10K in income taxes.... and now pay (on average) $10K in fuel taxes... then the income taxes should go to zero (on average). It then gives you the choice to purchase a fuel efficient vehicle and pay less in taxes if you so choose.

Of course sales taxes are somewhat regressive, and there will be some college professors who purchase Priuses... while those driving $500 junkers get pounded with additional taxes.

If one could create stability in fuel prices, there would be a benefit if letting people know what they should expect in he future.

Yes this is a great idea. Increasing at 2c/month might be a bit too fast of an increase and cause some rapid market distortions .. but maybe 18c/year would be ok. And you do have to rebate it because otherwise it's very regressive.

[LakeEffectKing]

I am at a total loss for words except to say that with the defeatist attitude on display by some here we are screwed. The economy is destined to collapse, the environment will continue to deteriorate and people in the future will scratch their heads wondering why. We will never learn.

People that share your attitude in the post....yes I agree!

[LakeEffectKing]

This isn't even a political issue anymore. All the non-partisan think tanks say the U.S. simply must raise taxes. Tax rates are at record low levels and the government is spending nearly twice as much as it gets in revenue (tax rates haven't been lower since the 1920s). Unless you want to just completely get rid of SS and Medicare and let the elderly fend for themselves in the streets, you need to raise taxes.

The exact ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts is debatable of course. Do we close the budget with 2/3s tax hikes, 1/3 spending cuts or the other way around? That's debatable, but the fact is that without tax hikes, you will have to completely destroy essential government services which will radically alter the well being of many many Americans.

If you isolate federal tax rates.....yes, for most brackets (including the poorest, which pay none, so it's both the highest and lowest for them) But couple the "lowest" fed tax rate (as you call it) with:

Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

CD L license Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Dog License Tax

Excise Taxes

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel Permit Tax

Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

Gross Receipts Tax

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax

Inventory Tax

IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Personal Property Tax

Property Tax

Real Estate Tax

Service Charge Tax

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Tax

Recreational Vehicle Tax

Sales Tax

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

Telephone Federal Excise Tax

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax

Telephone State and Local Tax

Telephone Usage Charge Tax

Utility Taxes

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

...we are far from being taxed at "record low levels"...and it's a bit much....unless you are a socialist.

Our founding fathers created a government system that was meant to keep the government (federal) from becoming "overbearing"......when is that threshold reached in your eyes???

[skierinvermont]

If you isolate federal tax rates.....yes, for most brackets (including the poorest, which pay none, so it's both the highest and lowest for them) But couple the "lowest" fed tax rate (as you call it) with:

Accounts Receivable Tax

Building Permit Tax

CD L license Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Dog License Tax

Excise Taxes

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Fuel Permit Tax

Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon)

Gross Receipts Tax

Hunting License Tax

Inheritance Tax

Inventory Tax

IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

Liquor Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Personal Property Tax

Property Tax

Real Estate Tax

Service Charge Tax

Social Security Tax

Road Usage Tax

Recreational Vehicle Tax

Sales Tax

School Tax

State Income Tax

State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)

Telephone Federal Excise Tax

Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax

Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax

Telephone State and Local Tax

Telephone Usage Charge Tax

Utility Taxes

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

...we are far from being taxed at "record low levels"...and it's a bit much....unless you are a socialist.

Our founding fathers created a government system that was meant to keep the government (federal) from becoming "overbearing"......when is that threshold reached in your eyes???

I am including ALL federal tax revenue from ALL taxes... yes taxes are at the lowest levels in the modern era.

Take ALL federal tax revenue... divide by total U.S. personal income = average effective tax rate. This rate is the smallest rate in the modern era.

[LakeEffectKing]

I am including ALL federal tax revenue from ALL taxes... yes taxes are at the lowest levels in the modern era.

Take ALL federal tax revenue... divide by total U.S. personal income = average effective tax rate. This rate is the smallest rate in the modern era.

Well, I guess I should start looking forward to the threshold point when motivation to work for $$ diminishes to just opting out of contributing to society and going on the wonderful vast public assistence programs out there.....and no income taxes to boot!!! Gettin' closer! I know of people doing so now!!! (99 weeks of unemployment on the wall, 99 weeks of unemployment....use up a week playing hide and seek....98 weeks of unemployment on the wall..............>>>>)

[Vandy]

Getting back to the point of the thread, China has also recently surpassed the US as number one in the world for wind deployment. They are building a whole lot of everything because their energy demand is going through the roof. Coal dominates of course... like us they have a hell of a lot of it. But clearly they see the need to diversify. Their populace also has higher acceptance of AGW theory. Here's a survey from 2007:

• 88% are concerned about climate change.
• 97% think their Government should do more to tackle global warming.
• 63% think that China is too dependent on fossil fuels.
• 56% think that China is too reliant on foreign oil.
• 91% think that a minimum 25% of electricity should be generated from renewable energy sources.
• 61% are concerned about nuclear power.
• 79% are concerned about carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries.
• 62% think it appropriate for developed countries to demand restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries.

[Hambone]

The U.S. still has the greatest per/capita emissions by far, which gives us the most room for improvement.

I also object to the assertion that it will ruin our economy. Yes huge carbon taxes implemented today would really slow economic growth maybe even spur another recession.

But we need to raise taxes anyways within the next 1-2 years. This is generally recognized by all mainstream economists, analysts, policy centers etc. It's not a political issue.. it's just a fact. Tax rates are at record low levels and it's not sustainable. We need to cut the budget and raise taxes. The IMF's recommendation is something like 2/3s spending cuts 1/3 tax hikes... I might have that reverse but you get the idea.

So perhaps one of the new taxes could be a carbon tax that starts out slowly and rises gradually with time. If we're going to raise taxes (which we must) it doesn't matter so much where the tax falls. Taxing carbon might actually be better than taxing income in the long run because it will help to get us off oil and carbon, which in the long run will be good as energy prices rise. Carter had the right idea 30 years ago.. we should have taxed oil.. the u.s. economy wouldn't use nearly as much oil today and wouldn't be as sensitive to the price of oil. Instead our economy is at the whim of global oil supply... a pinch in world oil supply can quickly trigger a u.s. recession.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/169805-cap-and-trade-would-sink-the-u-s-economy

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/29/ipcc-climatologist-cap-and-trade-could-ruin-us-economy/

William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute

A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.

[LakeEffectKing]

Have you looked up the actual fuel efficiency of your super-fuel-efficient bus?

http://en.wikipedia...._transportation

BTU per passenger-mile

---------------------------------------

Hybrid - 1,659

Commuter Light Rail - 2,996

Average Car - 3,512

Pickup - 3,944

Bus - 4,235

Several municipal transit systems report similar figures.

The problem is that while the buses may get hammered during Rush Hour, they also end up circling the city during off-peak hours with only a couple of passengers. And the transit systems are unable to use large buses during peak hours, then downsize to commuter vans during off-peak hours. A commuter system is ineffective if a person can't count on being able to catch the bus or train when it is needed.

The bus is going to run whether I ride it or not.....so by me adding about 185 lbs. of rock body muscle to the bus, but not driving my car, I think I can assume pretty much a net decrease in "real" pollution of exactly what is NOT emitted by my car sitting home.

[skierinvermont]

http://seekingalpha....the-u-s-economy

http://wattsupwithth...uin-us-economy/

William Yeatman, Energy Policy Analyst, Competitive Enterprise Institute

A cap-and-trade system necessarily harms the economy because it is designed to raise the cost of energy. Given the current economic crisis, an expensive energy policy is a bad idea.Almost all acts of economic production are powered by combusting fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), a process that emits greenhouse gases thought to cause global warming. A cap-and-trade system is simply a mechanism to put a price on emissions in order to compel businesses and consumers to emit less. That is, it's essentially an emissions tax. But greenhouse gas emissions are virtually synonymous with energy use, so it's actually a roundabout energy tax. In fact, economists agree that the simplest, most efficient way to reduce emissions is a direct tax. Politicians, however, are terrified of the "t-word," which is why they have embraced a cap-and-trade system.

The numbers are staggering. President Barack Obama's recently unveiled cap-and-trade plan would raise $645 billion in revenue from the government-run emissions auctions over eight years. Everyone would feel the pinch. Businesses would compensate for higher production costs and diminished markets by slashing jobs. Consumers would have to pay more for energy and energy intensive goods.

Expensive energy is bad enough, but the real danger of a cap-and-trade policy is a global trade war. A cap-and-trade system would give a competitive advantage to industries in countries that aren't subject to a de facto energy tax. Jobs would flow overseas, but so would emissions, a dynamic known as "carbon leakage." To prevent this, a broad coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups have expressed interest in a tariff that would tax the emissions content of imports from countries without stringent climate policies. Naturally, these countries would retaliate if such a tariff were enacted. Protectionism deepened the Great Depression, just as climate protectionism would worsen the current recession.

ALL taxes are bad for the economy. It doesn't matter whether you tax people's income, or if you tax the energy they use, the end result is that they spend less which reduces aggregate demand.

We need to raise taxes (along with cutting spending) to help balance the budget anyways within the next 1-2 years (provided the economy continues to grow). This would be one way of doing it as opposed to raising income taxes. I wasn't in favor of raising taxes during the recession.. but it is time to fix the deficit now.

Alternatively, one could rebate the increased cost of energy to the consumer, in which case it doesn't affect the economy very much at all.

[skierinvermont]

The bus is going to run whether I ride it or not.....so by me adding about 185 lbs. of rock body muscle to the bus, but not driving my car, I think I can assume pretty much a net decrease in "real" pollution of exactly what is NOT emitted by my car sitting home.

True.. but I think they often keep a tally of how many people ride/day and so you are contributing to the need to have busses even if very few people are using it and it is a net-polluter.

Although I tend to agree with you that busses are a good way to reduce oil consumption... we just need to encourage municipalities to try and develop more efficient bus schedules and routes.

[LakeEffectKing]

True.. but I think they often keep a tally of how many people ride/day and so you are contributing to the need to have busses even if very few people are using it and it is a net-polluter.

Although I tend to agree with you that busses are a good way to reduce oil consumption... we just need to encourage municipalities to try and develop more efficient bus schedules and routes.

It's a natural gas bus, fwiw.....