Climate bill...

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184454327221281.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

To be clear, I am all for increasing funding and research into alt energy sources and doing everything we can to transition to clean energy.

That said, this bill needs to be killed permanently. The idiotic cap and trade system is not a solution. It is a bureaucratic nightmare combined with wealth redistribution and little more.

"In a bow to this reality, California Democrat Barbara Boxer last week introduced 157 pages of amendments to Warner-Lieberman. Most notably, she sets aside at least $800 billion through 2050 for consumer tax relief. "

One politician alone adds 157 pages of amendments.... and for the record, yes, I assume other politicians in both parties are just as guilty as Boxer of adding on more bureaucratic crap that will not solve any of our problems.

 

[Bonestorm]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121184454327221281.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

To be clear, I am all for increasing funding and research into alt energy sources and doing everything we can to transition to clean energy.

That said, this bill needs to be killed permanently. The idiotic cap and trade system is not a solution. It is a bureaucratic nightmare combined with wealth redistribution and little more.

"In a bow to this reality, California Democrat Barbara Boxer last week introduced 157 pages of amendments to Warner-Lieberman. Most notably, she sets aside at least $800 billion through 2050 for consumer tax relief. "

One politician alone adds 157 pages of amendments.... and for the record, yes, I assume other politicians in both parties are just as guilty as Boxer of adding on more bureaucratic crap that will not solve any of our problems.

You're apparently for everything but forcing a change by internalizing the negative externalities associated with fossil fuel usage. Cap and trade is the only politically viable mechanism to do that. Completely scrapping any cap and trade system from the get go is nonsensical.

Having said that, I don't know the particulars of the bill but it doesn't look promising from the get go. Any cap and trade system has to be clean, that is, it cannot favor certain industries over others. That won't happen any time soon.

 

[Topspin]

it's mind boggingly retarded and must be crushed. The same turbo-libs cheerleading it today will be blasting the $1 gallon in crease in gas and exponentially higher utilities. Kinda comical actually. Yeah the Gov doesn't get enough money yet, give them a couple hundred more billion to shuffle to thier buddies.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're apparently for everything but forcing a change by internalizing the negative externalities associated with fossil fuel usage. Cap and trade is the only politically viable mechanism to do that. Completely scrapping any cap and trade system from the get go is nonsensical.

Having said that, I don't know the particulars of the bill but it doesn't look promising from the get go. Any cap and trade system has to be clean, that is, it cannot favor certain industries over others. That won't happen any time soon.

I disagree. Cap and trade is a way for the government to try and generate revenue. It is a way for them to redistribute wealth. It has little effect when it comes to reducing emissions. It is another attempt at Kyoto... which if I recall correctly, even the scientists who support Kyoto suggest that it will have little impact.

You do not solve problems by creating a bureaucratic nightmare. You solve problems by investing in solutions and alternatives. There is no valid reason for cap and trade. Not one. Even if it is "clean" as you suggest. All this will do is jack up our energy rates even further than we already have.

 

[Bonestorm]

I disagree. Cap and trade is a way for the government to try and generate revenue. It is a way for them to redistribute wealth. It has little effect when it comes to reducing emissions. It is another attempt at Kyoto... which if I recall correctly, even the scientists who support Kyoto suggest that it will have little impact.

You do not solve problems by creating a bureaucratic nightmare. You solve problems by investing in solutions and alternatives. There is no valid reason for cap and trade. Not one. Even if it is "clean" as you suggest. All this will do is jack up our energy rates even further than we already have.

First, Kyoto and international cap and trade schemes are a whole 'nother ballgame. The differences are too numerous to mention.

Cap and trade has little to do with revenue generation. Of course it will generate revenue initially in some forms (McCain's cap and trade scheme gives permits away as opposed to auctioning them off, for example) but I have no problem with that provided the funds are used to promote alternative energy investments and to provide relief to those on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder that will be hardest hit by resultant initial price increases.

There are many valid reasons for cap and trade. To insist that there aren't is just plain silly.

I'd also add that suggesting that cap and trade will be a bureaucratic nightmare is specious at best. Aside from the initial permitting phase, cap and trade is designed to run on market principles not government mandate. It is the least bureaucratic of emissions reduction enforcement regimes.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

First, Kyoto and international cap and trade schemes are a whole 'nother ballgame. The differences are too numerous to mention.

Cap and trade has little to do with revenue generation. Of course it will generate revenue initially in some forms (McCain's cap and trade scheme gives permits away as opposed to auctioning them off, for example) but I have no problem with that provided the funds are used to promote alternative energy investments and to provide relief to those on the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder that will be hardest hit by resultant initial price increases.

There are many valid reasons for cap and trade. To insist that there aren't is just plain silly.

I'd also add that suggesting that cap and trade will be a bureaucratic nightmare is specious at best. Aside from the initial permitting phase, cap and trade is designed to run on market principles not government mandate. It is the least bureaucratic of emissions reduction enforcement regimes.

1) Since Kyoto is so vastly different .... how about you describe briefly how it is different?

2) If there are many valid reasons for cap and trade, please enlighten me to a few of them.

3) Not a bureaucratic nightmare? When ONE Senator alone adds 157 pages of amendments to the "plan" that signals quite clearly what a mess this is going to be. (yes, in an ideal picture perfect scenario it would be market driven as you suggest.... but that is fantasy and not reality)

4) Cap and trade will not generate revenues? Well the author of the article and I both disagree with that.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) Do your own research, I'm not google.

2) Valid reasons for cap and trade include (1) actually reducing carbon emissions, (2) actually internalizing the negative externalities of fossil fuel use, (3) allowing alternative energy sources with little carbon emissions to compete on a more level playing field, among others.

3) Proposed amendments could lead to a bureaucratic nightmare. It could also mean that the original bill is a piece of shit. I don;t know the particulars of this legislation, but because one piece of cap and trade legislation is shitty doesn't mean that all cap and trade legislation has to be shitty.

4) I stated that cap and trade can generate revenues but that I am OK with it provided the revenues are allocated for certain programs and projects that are related to cap and trade. The alternative, giving away permits, is an enormous subsidy to the largest polluters. Something the Wall Street Journal op-ed page enjoys, I'm sure but I'm not certain why anyone else would.

5) Finally, stop reading the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. The news pages are first rate. The op-ed page is a stinking cesspool of ignorance.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) Do your own research, I'm not google.

2) Valid reasons for cap and trade include (1) actually reducing carbon emissions, (2) actually internalizing the negative externalities of fossil fuel use, (3) allowing alternative energy sources with little carbon emissions to compete on a more level playing field, among others.

3) Proposed amendments could lead to a bureaucratic nightmare. It could also mean that the original bill is a piece of shit. I don;t know the particulars of this legislation, but because one piece of cap and trade legislation is shitty doesn't mean that all cap and trade legislation has to be shitty.

4) I stated that cap and trade can generate revenues but that I am OK with it provided the revenues are allocated for certain programs and projects that are related to cap and trade. The alternative, giving away permits, is an enormous subsidy to the largest polluters. Something the Wall Street Journal op-ed page enjoys, I'm sure but I'm not certain why anyone else would.

5) Finally, stop reading the Wall Street Journal op-ed page. The news pages are first rate. The op-ed page is a stinking cesspool of ignorance.

1) you claim it is so different, I ask for a BRIEF description on how they are different and you tell me to "google it". So in other words, you have no friggin clue as to whether they are different or not. Understood.

2) How does cap and trade allow alternatives to be on a level playing field? AS for reducing carbon... that is crap. It does little to reduce carbon if you simply allow "greener" companies to sell their excess emissions to companies that cannot get under the mandate. It is a transfer of wealth, not a reduction in carbon. As stated before, cap and trade have a minimal effect on carbon emissions. You want to cap them... fine... but once you implement the trade aspect you are simply changing it to wealth redistribution.

3) Again, yes, you could create a cap and trade system that is better than any proposed. But again, that is fantasy as you and I both know that the idiots in DC (both parites) are going to continue to add their personal amendments on to each and every plan that comes out.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) you claim it is so different, I ask for a BRIEF description on how they are different and you tell me to "google it". So in other words, you have no friggin clue as to whether they are different or not. Understood.

2) How does cap and trade allow alternatives to be on a level playing field? AS for reducing carbon... that is crap. It does little to reduce carbon if you simply allow "greener" companies to sell their excess emissions to companies that cannot get under the mandate. It is a transfer of wealth, not a reduction in carbon. As stated before, cap and trade have a minimal effect on carbon emissions. You want to cap them... fine... but once you implement the trade aspect you are simply changing it to wealth redistribution.

3) Again, yes, you could create a cap and trade system that is better than any proposed. But again, that is fantasy as you and I both know that the idiots in DC (both parites) are going to continue to add their personal amendments on to each and every plan that comes out.

1) The primary differences from present purposes is that Kyoto is international
and voluntary whereas the proposed cap and trade system under discussion is national and mandatory.

2) Cap and trade levels the playing filed by increasing the price of fossil fuels to reflect their actual cost, taking into account the unpriced negative externalities that exist currently.

Additionally, it is true that greener companies can trade their excess pollution capacity but with a hard cap that reduces over time you end up with reductions. Look at the sulfur cap and trade program that the reductions in sulfur emissions under the Clean Air Act. And introducing a trading scheme isn't "wealth redistribution" it's creating a market for pollution that reflects the actual price of polluting.

3) Maybe so, maybe not. Cap and trade is the only system that has both the chance to work and a chance of actually being implemented. I personally prefer a carbon tax.

 

[Damocles]

1) The primary differences from present purposes is that Kyoto is international
and voluntary whereas the proposed cap and trade system under discussion is national and mandatory.

2) Cap and trade levels the playing filed by increasing the price of fossil fuels to reflect their actual cost, taking into account the unpriced negative externalities that exist currently.

Additionally, it is true that greener companies can trade their excess pollution capacity but with a hard cap that reduces over time you end up with reductions. Look at the sulfur cap and trade program that the reductions in sulfur emissions under the Clean Air Act. And introducing a trading scheme isn't "wealth redistribution" it's creating a market for pollution that reflects the actual price of polluting.

3) Maybe so, maybe not. Cap and trade is the only system that has both the chance to work and a chance of actually being implemented. I personally prefer a carbon tax.

I would cover a bit more and tax emissions. All of them.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) The primary differences from present purposes is that Kyoto is international
and voluntary whereas the proposed cap and trade system under discussion is national and mandatory.

2) Cap and trade levels the playing filed by increasing the price of fossil fuels to reflect their actual cost, taking into account the unpriced negative externalities that exist currently.

Additionally, it is true that greener companies can trade their excess pollution capacity but with a hard cap that reduces over time you end up with reductions. Look at the sulfur cap and trade program that the reductions in sulfur emissions under the Clean Air Act. And introducing a trading scheme isn't "wealth redistribution" it's creating a market for pollution that reflects the actual price of polluting.

3) Maybe so, maybe not. Cap and trade is the only system that has both the chance to work and a chance of actually being implemented. I personally prefer a carbon tax.

1) you crack me up.... THAT was your big difference? Pointing out that one was international and one national? Yeah, VAST difference there. FYI... that is not a "difference" when it comes to how the CAP and TRADE system works.

2) Increasing fossil fuel prices.... yeah, run on that strategy at a time when they are artificially high right now anyway. Artificially high in large part due to yet another government bureaucratic piece of shit in the form of subsidizine using our food for fuel.

3) Cap and trade does not have a chance to work. As I said, you can implement caps. THAT could possibly work. Especially if you incentivize them for green investments. But the second you bring the "trade" part into emissions, it falls apart.

 

[Bonestorm]

1) you crack me up.... THAT was your big difference? Pointing out that one was international and one national? Yeah, VAST difference there. FYI... that is not a "difference" when it comes to how the CAP and TRADE system works.

2) Increasing fossil fuel prices.... yeah, run on that strategy at a time when they are artificially high right now anyway. Artificially high in large part due to yet another government bureaucratic piece of shit in the form of subsidizine using our food for fuel.

3) Cap and trade does not have a chance to work. As I said, you can implement caps. THAT could possibly work. Especially if you incentivize them for green investments. But the second you bring the "trade" part into emissions, it falls apart.

1) My response regarding Kyoto was to your assertion that this is another attempt at Kyoto which scientists said didn't work in the first place. Kyoto didn't work because it was international and voluntary. That's why I pointed out that this system was national and mandatory. The two main reasons why Kyoto was ineffective are not present with national mandatory cap and trade regimes. It seems fairly important to point that out even if it is obvious. You clearly didn't get it.

2) If you want to reduce emissions and reduce consumption you have to increase the price. It's fairly simple. As long as fossil fuels are cheap and the negative exteralities are unpriced, you'll have lots of consumption.

By the way, do you have support for the idea that corn ethanol is in large part to blame for high gas prices?

3) Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) My response regarding Kyoto was to your assertion that this is another attempt at Kyoto which scientists said didn't work in the first place. Kyoto didn't work because it was international and voluntary. That's why I pointed out that this system was national and mandatory. The two main reasons why Kyoto was ineffective are not present with national mandatory cap and trade regimes. It seems fairly important to point that out even if it is obvious. You clearly didn't get it.

2) If you want to reduce emissions and reduce consumption you have to increase the price. It's fairly simple. As long as fossil fuels are cheap and the negative exteralities are unpriced, you'll have lots of consumption.

By the way, do you have support for the idea that corn ethanol is in large part to blame for high gas prices?

3) Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

1) It is NOT the international aspect that makes it fail. Neither is Kyoto "voluntary". If it is voluntary, then what the hell was all the whining about siging the damn thing? Just because it is not enforceable and the countries that did sign on to Kyoto are failing to live up to their requirements doesn't mean it was voluntary. You also originally stated that there were too many differences to mention. Yet you have nothing of substance to provide.

2) You do NOT have to increase price on fossil fuels to generate usage of alternatives. You have to make alternatives economically viable. Which is what is being done with solar for commercial properties. (though not so for residential). Raising prices for the sake of "competition" simply means that the average consumer is going to pay the higher cost. That is idioitic at best.

As for the ethanol... that was very poorly worded on my part. The ethanol subsidy was meant as a demonstration of higher costs to consumers due to bureacracy. It does not directly raise the price of gas. It raises overall costs to consumers. My bad on such poor wording.

3) No, repeating it over and over again doesn't make something true. Sorry, I thought you would be able to do the math in your head. I should not have assumed such a preposterous notion. If you simply allow companies to sell excess credits you are not getting everyone under your "caps". You are simply taking money from company A and giving it to company B. Which is wealth redistribution. It does not reduce carbon to any great extent.... which was the point made with regards to Kyoto. It is not because Kyoto is international or supposedly "voluntary". It is because it would take money from countries more involved in heavy industrial production and transfer it to countries that were based more on farming/service oriented businesses.