Basically, it comes down this: climate change is happening and the Chinese are moving ahead of us in green technology. Oh, yeah...and the right (as usual) is doing everything in their power to "prove" that man made climate change supporters are wrong by showing that it is a secret liberal plot to enslave and/or kill everyone.
Whether you agree that climate change is man made or not, it is happening. This means that parts of our planet are going to become unstable which will, in all likelihood, lead to national security concerns for the United States. Thankfully, our military has embraced the seriousness of the situation and is putting its resources to use.
As far as I'm concerned, it's probable that climate change is man made but I think we need more data and research. What we don't need is the pathological drive by the right to win the argument. Simply put, they are not being rational (surprise, surprise) and are hell bent to not give an inch on this issue. Worse, they seem to be turning more irrational. Take a gander at many of the conservative blogs out there that are offering this video and this video as "proof" of the liberal plot. Both of these shorts have been linked in comments here and emailed to me by hysterical conservatives. Read the comments below each video. Really guys? C'mon...
"Climategate" is over, folks. Factcheck dispensed with all of that hysteria quite nicely. They also addressed the "climate science slipping" meme as well. Again, all this demonstrates is that we need more data in my opinion. In the final analysis, I'm with Michael Mann on this one: time to take the politics out of climate science.
My employer, Penn State University, exonerated meafter a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety.
But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.
My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public. They are hurting American science. And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too.
More specifically, time to remove those who have a pathological need to prove people wrong whom they don't like. In all honesty, that's what this is really all about..an emotional reaction. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Ken Perrot has an excellent piece which basically torpedoes the naysayers and details that the only "gate" out there is "Skepticgate."
And, as I will continue to say over and over again, the Chinese are all in with green technology. If we want to keep pace with them, we're going to have to step it up. This could be an area that could keep jobs in this country (should we decide to lead the world in green tech) and, more importantly, spark our economy. You want to bitch about the deficit? Fine. Here's one solution to helping reduce it.
So, enough folks. I've got no problem with you if being a critical thinker is your raison d'etre. This is why we have peer review. But if you think that climate change science is part of a cabal whose goal is a power grab, I implore you to seek psychological help.
48 comments:
The "conservatives" who are against conservation really baffle me. It makes no sense to waste gasoline driving grossly overpowered vehicles at inefficient high speeds. "Freedom" to waste electricity by using old-fashioned inefficient bulbs isn't real freedom. It's just arrogant wastefulness.
The United States won the Second World War in large part due to the sacrifices made by its people through conservation: saving gas, saving electricity, recycling everything possible. Americans have completely lost all sense of the greater good of the country. Everything is about me.
Burning coal doesn't just put CO2 into the air: it puts sulphuric acid and mercury into the air and groundwater -- scrubbers may take most of the bad stuff out of what smokestacks emit, but it has to go somewhere. That somewhere is slurry ponds that seep into aquifers where our drinking water comes from, or overflow into rivers, lakes and streams to poison fish and other animals. We may have centuries worth of coal to burn, but think about how many thousands of miners will die going down one, two, three miles beneath the earth's surface to get it out. And the sulphur content of most of that low-grade soft coal is too high to legally burn these days, which means our standards will have to be reduced and we'll have lovely brown skies like China has. And our kids will all have emphysema, asthma and lung cancer.
Then there's the fact that we're nearing the end of easily accessible oil. There's a reason why the oil spill in the Gulf was so bad. All the rest of the oil in the United States is gone. We burned it all up over the last century. The only stuff that's left is buried three and four miles under the sea. Countries like Saudi Arabia claim to have huge reserves, but they have every reason to lie about it, and those reserves are every bit as inaccessible as ours are.
If we continue to depend on oil we're going to have to kowtow to countries like Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and so on. That, or we're going to go to war against them to steal their oil. And China needs oil even more than we do, because they actually manufacture things, whereas we just waste all that oil putting around aimlessly alone in our gas-hogs. When the Chinese come to expect the lifestyle we have, the supply of oil is going to dry up very fast.
We're 4% of the world's population and we consume about 25% of the world's energy. Our lifestyle and industries are ridiculously inefficient and depend on keeping the price of oil artificially low. That just cannot continue. That's not namby-pamby liberal talk. Them's the bitter facts.
The big misconception about climate change is that there's some debate about the science, and whether mankind is responsible. There's no debate, except by scientists on the oil companies' payrolls. Putting CO2 in the air causes the atmosphere to retain heat. It's like closing the windows of your car on a hot day. The more CO2 we pump into the air, the hotter it's gonna get. And in space it's sunny all the time.
The coal, gas and oil we're burning was put into the ground over billions of years. We're digging it all up and burning it in the span of about a hundred years. We're putting CO2 into the air millions of times faster than natural processes can put it back into the ground. Don't forget that there's also 7 billion of us. All burning stuff, All the time.
Finally, it's not the climate change that will kill us. It's the wars, famine and disease that global warming will cause due to resource shortages, crop failures and migration of tropical diseases northward.
That's the key, blk. It's the wars, famine and disease. These three issues will cause massive national security issues in the next couple of decades. One would think the RIght would be in favor of making sure our country is safe. I guess they aren't because proving liberals wrong is more important.
From Mark's link
--On February 4th, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Morgan Stanley stated that they would put into effect a set of "Carbon Principles" by which they would give investment priority to clean energy groups, and force any company planning to build coal-powered plants to show how they would deal with the carbon dioxide pollution in order to get investment money--
Free market solution?
My employer, Penn State University, exonerated meafter a thorough investigation of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive.
So I guess if BP had claimed that its investigations showed that BP had no responsibility for the Deepwater Horizon spill, you'd believe them, right?
There's also a lot if oil in Alaska that the left won't let us drill for, blk.
"Freedom" to waste electricity by using old-fashioned inefficient bulbs isn't real freedom.
Orwell would be so proud.
I won't even debate someone who can't simply admit what words actually mean. Yes freedom means being free to be wasteful. If you don't fucking like that, then don't use the word. Admit that you are opposed to freedom and that you want everyone to do EXACTLY what you think is the right way, the ONLY way. You could even build a cogent argument that such a world is a better world, but it is not and by definition CAN NOT be a freer world.
Juris-I don't get how you make the jump at all. What a bizarre definition of freedom. Being purposefully wasteful is tantamount to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It hurts everyone and it's not taking away freedom of speech. Totally agree with you, Tess. The effects of climate change have become an issue of national security. There needs to be a shift in how we are going to deal with this problem and the fervor of those who are purposefully skeptical needs to be completely ignored.
Being purposefully wasteful is tantamount to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Bullshit, not even close.
Besides which, you MAY [falsely] yell "fire" in a crowded theater - but you will face the consequences of your words. You cannot claim that such speech is protected from the consequences by the right to free speech. Or are all theaters clamping gags on their patrons yaps before they take their seats? In some cases this could be a real improvement on theater acoustics. [That is how you prevent someone from falsely yelling "fire"; the unintended consequence of which would be someone truthfully yelling "fire" would also be pre-empted.]
Mind you, and I doubt that many of you can grasp this, I am not arguing against conservation or common sense. What I am vehemently arguing with is the utterly Orwellian notion that less freedom is more freedom. You can argue for a less free world if you like, but don't try to bullshit me that I'll be more free in it. Maybe you truly can make me a better person - though the religious zealots of the world haven't had much luck with that - but I will be a less free person in your ideal world. There can be no argument about that.
If you wish to place a higher tax on energy, then do so - understanding that it will hurt the poor more than it does the middle class or rich. You shouldn't object to that, because the real purpose is to reduce energy use - not just energy use by "the rich". That is if you have any moral compass not permanently pointing at envy. I adjust my energy use with price - don't you?
For discussion: what was the worst "oil crisis" in world history? [And how did we survive it.]
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/10/027430.php
But there's no debate right?
Resignation letter in its entirity.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/
"Freedom" to waste electricity by using old-fashioned inefficient bulbs isn't real freedom. It's just arrogant wastefulness.
Ah... so the only "real freedom" is freedom to agree with what you consider to be "right". The only value to "freedom" and the only problem with "tyranny" is whether or not it provides the results you want.
In short, you consider "justice" equivalent to "a decision in your favor".
Pity you don't have courage to go with such convictions. If you did, you would stop trying to maintain that "rights" would be any more than a myth in such a system. You wouldn't have rights, you'd only have duties and privileges. Nor do you want them, they'd endanger the entire structure.
You got served blk!!
Funny how the left is all "follow the money" on politics and defense, but not on science - well, at least not the science they like. Those who resolutely defend the science supporting AGW will completely reject the science of modern agriculture.
Climate science is about as realistic (and scientific) as creation science, and serves a similar purpose.
And you are basing this on your extensive knowledge and experience as a scientist, juris? Or is it based (more likely) on right wing blogs?
Argument to authority daniel? If the Pope tells you so, it must be so.
I do happen to have a fair amount of experience with systems modeling (as an engineer not a pure scientist), with things much simpler and more controllable (variable-wise) than climate. That is hard enough AND I can validate the model against actual data. That's the biggest problem I see with climate modeling - the paucity of actual (and useful) temperature measurements. Once you get into proxies, let alone the homogenisation process, it becomes all but impossible to validate that the model is any better than a guess. And in climate "science" it ALL comes down to the model(s).
But of course you know about that stuff - you aren't just relying on left-wing blogs or mass media. And you aren't opposed to scientific agriculture or nuclear power either.
Climate alarmists are just like creationists - they have a story to tell and try to prop that story up with just a little bit of science. But they don't do real science because that is hard and it doesn't always give you the answers you want.
And you are basing this on your extensive knowledge and experience as a scientist, juris?
If you demand "extensive knowledge and experience as a scientist", why does the left so casually dismiss the position of noted Obama supporter Freeman Dyson, a physicist considered the equal of Einstein, who says the entire crop of AGW theories all contradict what is already known and proven about physics, in one way or another?
1. The man would actually prefer to support your position, but cannot because
2. it is completely at odds with what is known about a subject on which he's one of the world's foremost authorities. In addition,
3. Freeman Dyson made his fame, fortune and legacy decades ago, meaning that in a practical sense he has no "levers", thus
4. he cannot be bought.
Do you really want to discuss the actual science? I warn you, that's a can of worms you may not want to open.
Ooo...I'm so scared.
The fact is that neither of you have spent years studying climate change. To shit all over it in a sad attempt to score political points is complete crap. Mark nailed this one right on the head and your continued protestations continue to prove that.
Ooo...I'm so scared.
What the hell are you - eleven?
Is THIS the best that the entire liberal readership of this blog has to offer?
I mean seriously - this is just too much like the self-identified white supremacists, who are the worst possible specimens to be making that claim.
The talking down to conservatives attitude (presumably based on some conceit about intellectual superiority) has about the same level of credibility. Please at LEAST get a clue even if you can't handle a whole thought.
The fact is that neither of you have spent years studying climate change.
Nor have you, I'd guess. And yet the fact that I'm not Mann or Jones somehow precludes the possibility that my opinion could be valid, and somehow the fact that you aren't either doesn't lessen the validity of your opinion even a little bit.
How does that work, anyway?
I have not spent years studying climate change, so my opinion about it is probably invalid as far as Daniel is concerned.
The emails released in climategate was at the very least harmful to the credibility of the AGW crowd, and certainly was a black eye for science in general. Their practices, retention of raw data and treatment of skeptics leaves a LOT to be desired.
Climate should be studied, yes. Do we have enough data to proudly announce that we know what the problem is, or if there even IS a problem? HELL no. Something as complex as the climate of the entire globe may never be fully understood.
They can't even create a model that will accurately predict past temperatures based on the data they have. Obviously there are a few pieces missing.
Tess, under the proposed cap and trade bill, the right to emit carbon would be auctioned off to generate more revenue for the government. The president's budget projects receipts totaling $646 billion through 2019 from the sale of these greenhouse gas permits. Doing this will drive up the cost of nearly everything and will amount to a major tax increase for American consumers. The carbon tax will be paid by energy companies, manufacturers and public utilities, who will pass the cost on to their consumers.
Politicians love cap and trade because they can claim to be taxing "polluters", not workers. Whatever. Once the government creates a scarce new commodity — in this case the right to emit carbon — and then mandates that businesses buy it, the costs would inevitably be passed on to all consumers in the form of higher prices. When gas prices shot out of sight last year — not through taxation but through bad policy — the hardest hit were those on fixed or low incomes, as it wiped out a good portion of their disposable income.
Yeah Tess, how about those large financial institutions on Wall Street handling the upcoming worlds largest commodities market - selling and trading of carbon permits from the cap and trade bill. No wonder they are for it – those investment firms are now poised to reap huge windfalls from the sale of carbon permits that will accompany the legislation...just imagine the profits when carbon trading becomes a sanctioned business. All this time, I thought people had learned their lesson about creating fancy financial instruments out of nothing and allowing wall street to bandy them about. Will carbon derivatives be any different? A commodity being made out of thin air...the govt/wall street creating a value where none existed before. Hell at least mortgage securities had an asset behind them. A business with no products and no obligations relying on derivative securities and hedge funds to keep the money flowing to the govt and wall street banks. Sounds charming.
That’s hardly a free market solution Tess. As usual, you declined to tell us what YOU thought about the info you posted. So do you really think that is a "solution"?
Teabaggging nutjob, thank you for a kind, thoughtful, and reasoned response. This is the sort of skepticism that serves an actual purpose.
Comparing climate change scientists to creationists however, as juris does above, is a completely ludicrous comparison. They aren't even in the same ballpark, dude, c'mon! There's no other way to put this: You are wrong.
M, I specifically said "climate alarmists" - the ones claiming settled science and the like. Sure there are dedicated scientists studying the climate - they aren't the ones making outrageous pronouncements.
Anyone claiming that there is no debate is no scientist.
Mark nailed this one right on the head
He sure did, but not in the way you think he did.
Let's look at what Mark wrote.
First he says climate change happens.
Second he says that he thinks it is man caused, but we need more research.
Third he says that in order to avoid catastrophe we need to do something due to the climate change.
To address item one... well duh. No-one is saying climate doesn't change Mark. Anyone who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of history knows that there is climate change. Anyone who has seen a illustration of a dinosaur knows that they could not exist in a climate similar to today's. Any child who has seen the three Ice age movies know that there is climate change. Climate change happens, and has happened. It is a natural part of our planet.
To address item two. You think it is man caused but think we need more study? Really? So you are not totally on board and a true believer? The science isn't settled? Congratulations Mark, you are now outed as a denier. Prepare for someone to push a button and blow you into pieces you heretic...
As to item the third? We have to do something? We do? You just admitted we need more study to prove it's man caused, yet we (man) needs to do SOMETHING to fix what you can't even decide we caused in the first place? What is that, the greenie version of Pascal's Wager? Do something about climate change just in case man caused it?
Look, if you can't even state with 100% conviction that climate change is man caused, then you can't yet point to any action that man can do to negate it. If we need more research to understand if it is man made, then anything man does on a global level to 'fix' what we don't yet understand has just as much chance of making things worse.
Well, GuardDuck cuts to the core - it isn't about fixing the climate, it is about fixing man. These particular moralists have decided what the sin is and how redemption is to be achieved - whether you want it or not, whether it is warranted or not.
Last--it's hard for me to engage in a conversation with you because of your bias. There is nothing good the government can do when it comes to regulating business, in your opinion. Your entire comment reeks of the following sentiment: If only the government would leave well enough alone. This would be the same government that saved us from economic disaster. Are there any benefits that you see to the cap and trade bill? I think it is great that those companies are taking the steps they are taking. Our world is going to be all about green technology. If you want to make money, you better get with the program, Hoss!
>Last--it's hard for me to engage in a conversation with you because of your bias.
Tess: you do realize that one implication of you lecturing Last about being "biased" is that you must be unbiased such that you detect such bias. Do you (really) think that of yourself?
In the other thread, we're too insulting to converse with.
In this thread, we're too biased to converse with.
(I'm sensing a pattern on your part, and the smell in the air is chickenshit)
Then you proceed to tell me what my opinion is without answering the one question I had for you - if you thought that was a solution or not. Well???
It's impossible to raise costs for such basics as manufacturing and energy production by more than half a trillion dollars over a decade and not have the effects felt across the economy. Yeah, there's an upside to the bill - the negative impact it will have on economic growth and job creation will probably help your carbon emissions problem but by the time you realize that goal, we'll have permanent 10% unemployment in this country.
A nation looking to boost growth has to first rely on cheap and plentiful energy. Without that, investment disappears and so do jobs, production, and consumer confidence.
The bill will adversely impact any attempt for an economic recovery. With the supply of licenses to emit carbon dioxide fixed, the price of the permits will inevitably rise as economic activity picks up. That means that any increase in overall demand will increase the price of energy, and thus, in a feedback loop, nearly everything else. That will damp down demand. The more the economy tries to speed up, the more the carbon tax will work to prevent it from doing so.
We will have permanent 10 percent unemployment in this country? Really? So, you're telling us that you can accurately predict the future. You know what is going to happen. How can this be possible?
I read this post from a while back on here: Just because you say it, doesn't mean that it's true or will be true. I learned a long time ago that when someone on the right says something is going to happen, the opposite usually does.
I just want to add that I know exactly what it's like now to be Mark. Good grief!
So, you're telling us that you can accurately predict the future.
And yet when the same people who said, "Unemployment will top 8% if we don't do something" say, "Unemployment would have topped 15% if we hadn't done something" after their first prediction proves horribly off target, you have no trouble at all swallowing such whoppers, and no real evidence is needed.
Amazing. Truly amazing.
Sheesh Angela, this isn't rocket science. It's been brought down to basic high school economics for you.
Supply and demand.
Unlike the science of climate change, there's not a lot of disagreement among the experts about the basics of supply and demand.
You see, there are verifiable, observable, repeatable facts available for accurate prediction of what will happen in an economy when supply and/or demand are changed.
It's like gravity. If you jump out of an airplane without a parachute, you are going to hit the ground very hard. Neither Last in Line, myself or gravity cares whether or not you believe in it. It just is. And it just is whether or not it's told to you by someone on the right, because chances are the person on the right didn't sleep through Econ 101.
I did answer the question, last. I think it's a good idea for those companies to be leading the way in industries that favor green technology. It's simply good business for a number of reasons. I'm sorry that you don't like that business but that's where we are heading. I haven't really addressed cap and trade because it hasn't passed the Senate yet and likely will never become law. So why are you upset about it? The Democrats are likely to lose seats so it will be even less likely. I would think you would be happy and not create an argument over something that doesn't exist. Is that being deliberately contrary, Mark?
I just saw GuardDuck's comment. Oh, the glorious arrogance! So now let me see if I have this straight. The conservative theories of economics and how they relate to cap and trade are now as sure of a thing as gravity?
Add a bit of glorious bias to that glorious arrogance Tess. Unless you also want to take Angela to task for claiming the left is always right, by default, because "when someone on the right says something is going to happen, the opposite usually does."
I think I'll wade in a little and see how it goes.
Yes, Tess. They are being deliberately contrary. It's quite tiresome.
I do agree with you somewhat as well that it's pointless to debate this bill. It's never going to become law. I am curious though, last, about a couple of things.
First, I take it that you disagree with the CBO's estimate that this bill will be deficit neutral? And that the tax payer burden will be limited?
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090626/hr2454_cbo20090626.pdf
Remember, if you claim they are just "projecting" how is that different from what you are doing?
I'm also wondering why GE, Exelon, Dow Chemical and PG & E are supporting the bill. Certainly the last on this list would give me pause in supporting it. If energy companies are going to be taxed and ordered around by the government, why do they support it?
It seems to me that you are just making blanket statements about a bill that is not likely to pass in a future that hasn't happened yet from an ideological point of view that has a less than stellar track record regarding the issue of supply and demand.
I imagine that these large corps are for such a scheme because they will benefit from it. The costs and regulatory compliance will hurt/bankrupt their smaller competitors, costs that these large corporations can absorb easier. As for the chemical companies, I can see opportunities for them in supplying materials that companies being forced to go green will have to buy.
I imagine that these large corps are for such a scheme because they will benefit from it. The costs and regulatory compliance will hurt/bankrupt their smaller competitors, costs that these large corporations can absorb easier. As for the chemical companies, I can see opportunities for them in supplying materials that companies being forced to go green will have to buy.
Deliberately contrary to what? Not one of you has disputed anything I typed about the bill in this thread. Just saying "I'm sorry that you don't like that business but that's where we are heading" isn't really getting too specific and does not dispute what I typed up about the Wall Street firms.
...and Tess, is Supply and Demand now a "Conservative theory"?
Mark, ask those companies why they support it. I don't work for them. I'm sure the bill won't add to the deficit because, according to your link, "enacting the legislation would increase revenues by $873 billion over
the 2010-2019 period". That's the government taking $873 billion out of the private sector.
Maybe these "blanket statements" I'm making came from "your side"...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/91xx/doc9134/04-24-Cap_Trade_Testimony.1.1.shtml
There you have testimony from Obamas former budget director Peter Orszag. Here's my money quote...third bullet point down...
"Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices. Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program because they would be the most important mechanism through which businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions."
The price increases (I spoke about in my "blanket statements" that none of you disputed) being passed on to the consumer are essential to the success of the bill? Limited taxpayer burden my arse!
Tess sez There is nothing good the government can do when it comes to regulating business, in your opinion.
Really? Have you read the Corporate Force thread? last is pretty clear that the govt mandating inspections of natural gas pipes is a very good thing. M was the one complaining that this was some malicious scheme on the part of business.
Hopefully you don't jump in front of buses like you jump to conclusions.
It's simply good business for a number of reasons.
Reason number one is that the govt is putting some incentives on the table - and the first to lay claim will probably get the most. Second, there are a set of consumers - you may even be one yourself - who will pay premium prices for "green" goods. You haven't seen Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on "organic food" have you? Businesses will sell people what they want (even if it isn't any better for the business or the consumer).
conservative theories of economics
Supply and demand is a conservative theory? Yeah, about like gravity is a conservative theory in physics. Do you want to be taken seriously - then don't say such patently ridiculous things.
Raising the price of energy on households in order to make behavioral changes? Mark, Tess, Angela, you support that?
Yes, Tess. They are being deliberately contrary. It's quite tiresome.
Yes Mark, contrary to the arrogant ignorance displayed.
I do agree with you somewhat as well that it's pointless to debate this bill.
It is not pointless to debate this bill. Why? The fact that this travesty even got introduced in the first place is sickening. Introduced as a result of the hysteria around Global Warming which isn't settled. It is the utmost irresponsible act to introduce mandates on hysteria. Not only that, here is the take on this from the National Center for Public Policy Research:
Futility of Lieberman-Warner
The sharp GHG reduction requirements are dependent on significant technological innovations -- innovations that simply can't be mandated.
Even if they could be, Lieberman-Warner would have virtually no effect on the climate, according to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists and now senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute: "Say the U.S. actually does what the law says, though no one knows how to. The result is an additional 0.013 degrees (C) of 'prevented' warming," says Michaels.
According to Michaels, such a small change is too small to measure, as natural temperature variation from year-to-year is many times higher.2
Furthermore, China has surpassed the United States as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases and its emissions growth is currently several times larger than the emissions growth of the United States. The emissions of other developing nations, such as India, are also growing at a rate much higher than those of the United States.3
That is pure CRAP legislation. Legislation that imposes costly mandates, based on conjecture, and has no impact on the result desired. While I can understand your desire to reduce emissions, which I share, this is unsupportable, irresponsible, and nothing more than a tax on business.
First, I take it that you disagree with the CBO's estimate that this bill will be deficit neutral? And that the tax payer burden will be limited?
Ok, so I went there and it seems to be a decent projection. Tax payer burden will probably be limited - DIRECTLY. The indirect costs to consumers could be massive. This report does nothing but talk about direct tax revenues and effects on the government, not potential economic impacts on conumers. Every tax or mandate on business, EVERY ONE, gets passed on to consumers. The only way it can't is if government steps in and mandates cost controls. That requires more bureaucracy and additional direct costs. Ugly cycle to be sure.
If energy companies are going to be taxed and ordered around by the government, why do they support it?
If their manufacturing base isn't here, what cost is there for them? If they have significant green energy initiatives, products, and R&D, everyone is going to have to buy their products because of the mandate. They may even be getting taxed but are getting a huge new market which offsets the cost. Of course they are going to push for it. No business would push for increase costs without having a benefit. Geez, this is basic stuff.
Here's what factcheck has to say about it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/cap-and-trade-cost-inflation/
Between 98 and 140 extra per year per customer. I'd happily pay that much more if it meant less issues with international security. My question to all of you naysayers is would you pay that much extra if the DOD asked you for it to combat Al Qaeda?
Oh please dusty, factcheck listed five different sources with per household costs from a low of $98 to a high of $3100. You can't just pick the lowest number without reading the background info.
Of course factcheck's figures aren't their own and they are just comparing those that are already released. They seem to put their stamp of approval on one over the others, based on what I'm not entirely sure.
What I see out of the estimates that are on the lower side of the scale is that cost reductions are made to the numbers by gov't programs to reduce the cost to middle and low income families. But the studies don't take into account the necessary tax increases that are needed to fund those same programs. So in other words the cost is being shuffled around like a shell corporation to hide the actual cost. And factcheck doesn't take that into account.
Another obvious flaw in the lower estimates used is that it considers future energy use to be reduced. Reduced?!? Look, with population increases and the concurrent increases of energy along with the need to continue on with the 'creation of wealth' i.e. jobs energy usage worldwide will increase. Even with drastic recycling and conservation the best you can hope for is energy usage levels to remain constant.
That is a major flaw in the factcheck estimates. In a world where energy usage is reduced (ain't gonna happen) there are more carbon credits than costs and that means the costs are reduced. If energy usage remains constant or increases then the carbon costs become a major cost, a cost that will increase exponentially with the increased energy output.
To all you supporters, would you pay $3100 extra per year to help reduce carbon emissions?
rld, that is a complete lie. Did you read the factcheck link that dusty provided?
My question to all of you naysayers is would you pay that much extra if the DOD asked you for it to combat Al Qaeda?
And once again, we see the fundamental difference between liberal and conservative thinking. In liberal world, 50.1% of the population (fewer if you can find a way to fudge the numbers) demanding something at gunpoint (e.g, "comply or go to jail") of the other 49.9% is equivalent to "asking you for it".
But on the other hand, if Centerpoint Energy demands the freedom to do a safety inspection of their own equipment on your property in order to allow you to use their equipment, that's "an unacceptable use of force".
Boy, this discussion came to a sudden halt.
Post a Comment