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

[WeatherRusty]

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.

That explanation of cap and trade deals only with the negative side of the equation. The "tax" receipts are not supposed to go into government general revenues, but rather to be diseminated to disaffected consumers and pumped into the development of renewables by way of subsidies in the promotion of businesses engaging in the new energy economy. Much in the same way as our government currently subsidizes Big Oil (like they need it!). Businesses which come in under the cap are rewarded by the ability to sell their remaining vouchers to companies who go over allowing the big polluters to stay in business while encouraging efficiency and the use of alternatives.

Cap and trade plans have already been successfully implemented by EPA as a measure to combat acid rain. It works.

[Hambone]

That explanation of cap and trade deals only with the negative side of the equation. The "tax" receipts are not supposed to go into government general revenues, but rather to be diseminated to disaffected consumers and pumped into the development of renewables by way of subsidies in the promotion of businesses engaging in the new energy economy. Much in the same way as our government currently subsidizes Big Oil (like they need it!). Businesses which come in under the cap are rewarded by the ability to sell their remaining vouchers to companies who go over allowing the big polluters to stay in business while encouraging efficiency and the use of alternatives.

Cap and trade plans have already been successfully implemented by EPA as a measure to combat acid rain. It works.

If you believe any of that I have some swamp land in New Jersey that you might like. The government is not your friend, it will use the program to continue to expand the bureaucracy and power over your life.

We don't need more taxes, we need way less government.

[skierinvermont]

If you believe any of that I have some swamp land in New Jersey that you might like. The government is not your friend, it will use the program to continue to expand the bureaucracy and power over your life.

We don't need more taxes, we need way less government.

Several of the proposed bills had rebates to consumers included in the text. If you didn't receive your rebate, you could sue, and you would win.

[LakeEffectKing]

Several of the proposed bills had rebates to consumers included in the text. If you didn't receive your rebate, you could sue, and you would win.

So the money gets taken away, and then given back.......sounds real efficient.....and if you don't get your money back, then you can give it to lawyers....perfect.

[WeatherRusty]

So the money gets taken away, and then given back.......sounds real efficient.....and if you don't get your money back, then you can give it to lawyers....perfect.

If the government is going to be involved in the promotion of certain businesses, such as is currently the case with Big Oil subsidies, then why the hesitation to do the same for renewables? Why give one form of energy production a competitive advantage over newer, cleaner alternatives?

Cap and trade is a system which rewards efficiency and innovation. Isn't that what we all want? The real problem is that many dislike the government mandating what is good for us. How else to better escalate progress. I'm all ears.

[Vandy]

Cap and trade is a system which rewards efficiency and innovation. Isn't that what we all want? The real problem is that many dislike the government mandating what is good for us. How else to better escalate progress. I'm all ears.

Yeah the problem with letting the market decide in general is that the market has no concept of environmental health, safety, societal health, societal discrimination, and other non-wealth based factors.

[skierinvermont]

So the money gets taken away, and then given back.......sounds real efficient.....and if you don't get your money back, then you can give it to lawyers....perfect.

You wouldn't have to sue.. that was a sarcastic comment in response to Hambone's idea that the government wouldn't actually give the money back. Do you know anybody that has to sue to get their SS check?

And it is very efficient. The government would probably be able to perform this function with a transaction cost of 1% (or less) of the amount of money being traded hands. It increases efficiency because it corrects for externalities, which is THE fundamental role of capitalist governments. The true underlying costs of fossil fuels have huge externalities and it's the government's job to correct externalities.

Externalities:

-economic dependence

-security issues

-AGW

-pollution

-etc.

[LakeEffectKing]

If the government is going to be involved in the promotion of certain businesses, such as is currently the case with Big Oil subsidies, then why the hesitation to do the same for renewables? Why give one form of energy production a competitive advantage over newer, cleaner alternatives?

Cap and trade is a system which rewards efficiency and innovation. Isn't that what we all want? The real problem is that many dislike the government mandating what is good for us. How else to better escalate progress. I'm all ears.

I'm totally against Oil companies and subsidies. And with all the lobbiests out there, the notion that "what is good for us" being determined by the government is laughable....no matter what party is in power. I can lay out numerous examples where gov. has/is gave/giving incredibly poor advice for the common good of the people. I work in the environmental health field, and am extremely knowlegable as to how various regulatory agencies implement environmental law. It works to a point, but get a good lobbiest making noise, and things can really go askew wrt WAY over regulation. CO2 is just one example. When you look at it objectively, what the EPA plans to implement wrt CO2 emission regulation vs. what that regulation will do for a return on our (THE USA) sacrifice, it is zero. (ie the CO2 slowing or slight decrease will impact future global temperatures by 0.001 degrees C.) We have emission regulations already in place for VOC's and other compounds, so this is a case of either over regulations (as mentioned above) or political lobbiests working there magic for a symbolic (feel good) jester to a GREEN GOD.

[LakeEffectKing]

You wouldn't have to sue.. that was a sarcastic comment in response to Hambone's idea that the government wouldn't actually give the money back. Do you know anybody that has to sue to get their SS check?

And it is very efficient. The government would probably be able to perform this function with a transaction cost of 1% (or less) of the amount of money being traded hands. It increases efficiency because it corrects for externalities, which is THE fundamental role of capitalist governments. The true underlying costs of fossil fuels have huge externalities and it's the government's job to correct externalities.

Externalities:

-economic dependence

-security issues

-AGW

-pollution

-etc.

Man, you trust our higher governments much more than I do with our money. Have you ever looked at the fraud, loop holes, and waste associated with: medicare, medicade, food stamps, unemployment insurance, workers comp., military, etc....etc...???

[skierinvermont]

Man, you trust our higher governments much more than I do with our money. Have you ever looked at the fraud, loop holes, and waste associated with: medicare, medicade, food stamps, unemployment insurance, workers comp., military, etc....etc...???

Well I don't know the efficiencies of the others off the top of my head, but Medicare has administrative costs of only 3% despite the fact that Medicare reimburses doctors much less than private insurance does. So Medicare is efficient in both its administration and its bargaining power to get lower prices.

[Hambone]

Several of the proposed bills had rebates to consumers included in the text. If you didn't receive your rebate, you could sue, and you would win.

It has rebates to people who don't pay taxes. I don't fall into that group...

[skierinvermont]

It has rebates to people who don't pay taxes. I don't fall into that group...

They would pay the tax via higher energy prices and therefore would have earned the rebate. So basically you oppose a bill which would help prevent AGW out of spite against poor people receiving rebates from the government which they would be paying for indirectly.

[Hambone]

They would pay the tax via higher energy prices and therefore would have earned the rebate. So basically you oppose a bill which would help prevent AGW out of spite against poor people receiving rebates from the government which they would be paying for indirectly.

I don't believe that carbon is the prime culprit in climate change, why would I support any program that significantly alters our economic prosperity and seriously hurts our working class?

The reasons jobs have gone overseas are.. cost of labor, environmental regs, energy costs, taxes, other regulatory burdens etc. Adding a cap and trade program to solve a problem that is yet to be proved, and/or cannot be solved by US actions regardless is a fools errand.

Back to my original point, the AGW movement is spinning its collective wheels trying to prove that carbon is the primary driver of climate change. My position is that even if that were true, the US is powerless to do anything about it. Third world agriculture, China and India are not going to change their ways.... they will continue to expand their contributions of carbon.

It's silly to spend another dime trying to prove carbon is the culprit. It would make sense for all this research money and energy be redirected towards alternative energy and sequestration technologies. Eliminate the need for carbon in an economically feasible manner and you'll promote economic growth instead of destroying it.... Develop sequestration technologies and you've hedged your bet should carbon be PROVEN to be a prime driver.

Let's get busy making stuff instead of trying to build a political powerbase.

[Brewbeer]

People, we need to remember that in the United States of American, our government IS the people. Government FOR the people, BY the people, OF the people. It is you, me, my neighbors, your neighbors, the people who live across town and the people who live across the nation, who decide the policies for the good of the country, the good of US. If we don’t like the laws and rules that WE make (through our government), it is not the government’s fault, it’s OUR fault for believing the beliefs in the first place.

All this whining about "the government is bad because of this or that" is just so annoying. Government is the reason humanity has progress to the point where we are now, especially for us living in the United States in nice houses, driving nice cars, and enjoying a standard living that has never been experienced in the history of humanity. If it weren’t for government we’d all still be running around in home made clothes beating each other over the head trying to scrounge up our next meal.

We need to stop whining about the generic "government is bad" and start using intelligent, rational discussion of facts and reality to convince us that what we are doing is misguided. I believe that there are enough people in our country that are generally intelligent, rational, thoughtful and considerate enough to make wise choices; and will make decisions based on a reasoned and thoughtful consideration of the issues and facts. That is why this forum exists, and why WE the PEOPLE, through our government, are taking steps to address AGW: we've looked at the facts, we've considered what could happen in the future, and the majority of us believe that unless we do something, the result will be very, very bad for humanity.

[LakeEffectKing]

People, we need to remember that in the United States of American, our government IS the people. Government FOR the people, BY the people, OF the people. It is you, me, my neighbors, your neighbors, the people who live across town and the people who live across the nation, who decide the policies for the good of the country, the good of US. If we don’t like the laws and rules that WE make (through our government), it is not the government’s fault, it’s OUR fault for believing the beliefs in the first place.

All this whining about "the government is bad because of this or that" is just so annoying. Government is the reason humanity has progress to the point where we are now, especially for us living in the United States in nice houses, driving nice cars, and enjoying a standard living that has never been experienced in the history of humanity. If it weren’t for government we’d all still be running around in home made clothes beating each other over the head trying to scrounge up our next meal.

We need to stop whining about the generic "government is bad" and start using intelligent, rational discussion of facts and reality to convince us that what we are doing is misguided. I believe that there are enough people in our country that are generally intelligent, rational, thoughtful and considerate enough to make wise choices; and will make decisions based on a reasoned and thoughtful consideration of the issues and facts. That is why this forum exists, and why WE the PEOPLE, through our government, are taking steps to address AGW: we've looked at the facts, we've considered what could happen in the future, and the majority of us believe that unless we do something, the result will be very, very bad for humanity.

Hopefully you'll repost this in md-Nov. 2012.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't believe that carbon is the prime culprit in climate change, why would I support any program that significantly alters our economic prosperity and seriously hurts our working class?

The reasons jobs have gone overseas are.. cost of labor, environmental regs, energy costs, taxes, other regulatory burdens etc. Adding a cap and trade program to solve a problem that is yet to be proved, and/or cannot be solved by US actions regardless is a fools errand.

Back to my original point, the AGW movement is spinning its collective wheels trying to prove that carbon is the primary driver of climate change. My position is that even if that were true, the US is powerless to do anything about it. Third world agriculture, China and India are not going to change their ways.... they will continue to expand their contributions of carbon.

It's silly to spend another dime trying to prove carbon is the culprit. It would make sense for all this research money and energy be redirected towards alternative energy and sequestration technologies. Eliminate the need for carbon in an economically feasible manner and you'll promote economic growth instead of destroying it.... Develop sequestration technologies and you've hedged your bet should carbon be PROVEN to be a prime driver.

Let's get busy making stuff instead of trying to build a political powerbase.

Science has already demonstrated that our emissions of CO2 and other activities are "the culprit". As you say, it is you who does not believe it.

Eliminate the need for carbon in an economically feasible manner and you'll promote economic growth instead of destroying it

We are all for it. Let's do it. We are having a difficult time overcoming the AGW misinformation machine however!

[Hambone]

Science has already demonstrated that our emissions of CO2 and other activities are "the culprit". As you say, it is you who does not believe it.

Hardly, the amount of money being poured into the AGW camp is the clearest proof that there is no proof... There is a hypothesis, that more and more of the scientific community simply disagree with.

[skierinvermont]

Hardly, the amount of money being poured into the AGW camp is the clearest proof that there is no proof.

Excellent point! You have persuaded me!

[WeatherRusty]

Hardly, the amount of money being poured into the AGW camp is the clearest proof that there is no proof... There is a hypothesis, that more and more of the scientific community simply disagree with.

You have been convinced by bogus surveys and poll numbers that "more and more of the scientific community simply disagree with" the scientific basis for AGW. Your right leaning political viewpoint makes you vulnerable to the AGW misinformation machine perpetrated by Big Oil funded conservative think tanks and a small band of conservative leaning scientists as their spokesmen.

I am disappointed to hear you disapprove of science being done in an area where every major scientific organization, including the NAS, AGU, AMS agrees that AGW is a serious problem deserving of intense study.

[salbers]

Hardly, the amount of money being poured into the AGW camp is the clearest proof that there is no proof... There is a hypothesis, that more and more of the scientific community simply disagree with.

I'd feel more comfortable with our neglect of climate change if someone could prove it ISN'T carbon.

[Hambone]

You have been convinced by bogus surveys and poll numbers that "more and more of the scientific community simply disagree with" the scientific basis for AGW. Your right leaning political viewpoint makes you vulnerable to the AGW misinformation machine perpetrated by Big Oil funded conservative think tanks and a small band of conservative leaning scientists as their spokesmen.

I am disappointed to hear you disapprove of science being done in an area where every major scientific organization, including the NAS, AGU, AMS agrees that AGW is a serious problem deserving of intense study.

Did you ever hear of "paralysis by analysis"?

I'm a pragmatist, I care about the bottom line. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing, cleaning the atmosphere is a good thing. Blaming manmade emissions for global warming is a political tool in the quest for power. As I said repeatedly, even if the science was conclusive, China, India, SE Asia, S. America aren't going to abandon their paths.

There are 7 billion people on the planet who need to eat, have shelter, be otherwise taken care of. The US is powerless to make any meaningful change in carbon production, so why bother studying a problem that can't be solved?

Abandon the meaningless research and throw all resources behind alternate energy production and carbon sequestration technology.

You say there is a problem, I say fine.... fix it, but fix it in an economically sound manner...

It's like the war on drugs. What we do is sstupid, and politically motivated. We spend $40 billion/year on interdiction, yet drug use is constant, if not increasing. Abandon interdiction, legalize drugs, tax them, use the tax proceeds for treatment and education. Save the $40 billion for more valuable programs...

The war on drugs will never end because the law enforcement community is too powerful and the legaliztion of drugs would reduce the need for police.

AGW research will never end because the scientific community is harvesting bushels of low hanging fruit and won't give up the easy money available for pro AGW researchers in exchange for uncertain funding for life changing technology research.

[WeatherRusty]

Did you ever hear of "paralysis by analysis"?

I'm a pragmatist, I care about the bottom line. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels is a good thing, cleaning the atmosphere is a good thing. Blaming manmade emissions for global warming is a political tool in the quest for power. As I said repeatedly, even if the science was conclusive, China, India, SE Asia, S. America aren't going to abandon their paths.

There are 7 billion people on the planet who need to eat, have shelter, be otherwise taken care of. The US is powerless to make any meaningful change in carbon production, so why bother studying a problem that can't be solved?

Abandon the meaningless research and throw all resources behind alternate energy production and carbon sequestration technology.

You say there is a problem, I say fine.... fix it, but fix it in an economically sound manner...

It's like the war on drugs. What we do is sstupid, and politically motivated. We spend $40 billion/year on interdiction, yet drug use is constant, if not increasing. Abandon interdiction, legalize drugs, tax them, use the tax proceeds for treatment and education. Save the $40 billion for more valuable programs...

The war on drugs will never end because the law enforcement community is too powerful and the legaliztion of drugs would reduce the need for police.

AGW research will never end because the scientific community is harvesting bushels of low hanging fruit and won't give up the easy money available for pro AGW researchers in exchange for uncertain funding for life changing technology research.

Yours is the typical conservative argument. It stems from the way conservatives are internally wired. As a liberal I do not share your cynical view for the ulterior motivation of those seeking AGW mitigation and those engaged in the drug war. I believe those causes to be just and worthy of interdiction for the plain and simple reason that they carry negative implications for society. On face value alone they are both worthy causes. Your way of thinking does not resonate with something deep seated in the liberal brain. We are wired differently. Neither view is correct or wrong, both are useful given particular context. Just because ulterior motivation may be a prevalent, pervasive given as part of our worldly reality, does not imply every motivation is corrupted by its influence.

AGW and the drug war stand on their own merits as problems in need of mitigation. However, in the case of AGW the arguments presented by skeptics revolve around the validity of the science. Everything involving the science has been under dispute at one time or another. Conservatives apparently so doubt the science that they view any attempt toward political/economic mitigation as a thinly veiled power grab or money pit. These theories of hoax and conspiracy just don't fly for me.

I am a pragmatist too. We had better find realistic solutions to the problems of AGW, peak oil and peak everything and do it soon or our civilization will be in deep dodo. You are correct, the U.S. can not do this alone. These are global problems in need of global solutions. If you are correct and the problems can't be solved because they are insurmountable by our current global political/economic state then we are screwed, but I think addressing the problems at the source will be much less expensive than any adaptation strategies. Throwing our resources behind development of alternate sources of energy, as you say, is exactly what we should be doing. The thing is it will not happen based on the free market alone as long as fossil fuels remain inexpensive. Without government stimulus, the free market will fully engage only when it becomes profitable. Unfortunate, that will be when the poop is hitting the fan for most of us.