Can Someone Explain Cap and Trade? (mortgages, company, money-making, financial)

[Brave Stranger]

Originally Posted by user_id

These sorts of systems are the free market solution to trying to get businesses to reduce their emissions. Its surprising that there is so much opposition to it, but big businesses often uses fear to get the people to reject things that they don't like.

The house included a part that would force tariffs on countries that did not also reduce their emissions starting I believe in 2020. The WTO appears to agree that such moves are not violations. The tariffs can be removed in some cases, but only with the approval of congress.

How's "cap & trade" working out for Spain & Australia ? Not much is it ? They are trying to get rid of it.

[f_m]

When I think about it, I think, if it only applies to US companies, then many may just move work to outside the US through subsidiaries or contractors.

[sunsprit]

Originally Posted by Philip T

Looks like you have a whole field strawmen to argue with on that one post.

And it looks like you are familiar with the concept with that many examples, but for those who are not . . . .

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hard to guess if you are seeking an intelligent discussion or just seeking to argue? If the latter, I would recommend therapy. If sincere, a large start would be begin taking US off of oil for transportation.

Transportation is the largest sector of oil consumption in the US. In particular off of oil for ground transportation by transitioning to grid powered electric. That covers autos, trucks, trains, high speed rail -- however, commercial aircraft and airlines, in the long run are probably screwed.

And before you go back into goofy strawman rants, you did not hear me say Solar PV, batteries, nor nukes.

As far as subsidies -- none are really needed. Just stop subsidizing and enabling the current polluting carbon based systems (oil, coal, etc.) and they would cease over time.

For my part I do not argue CO2 either way. It is just that Oil and Coal are bad business, and dirty no matter what we do.

Thanks for the medical advice ... unfortunately, it doesn't address the overall issues you brought up and is rather insultingly condescending upon your part to assert I only want to argue for the gratification of argument. And yes, I'm well aware of "straw man" arguments, as I'll bet, most of the posters here are. How utterly condescending you are to all of them, too, as if that is in any way responsive to the thread.

Anyway, "Cap and trade" is directed to all forms of carbon dioxide production. So, it's not limited to the consumption of oil, but all forms of combustion of fossil fuels (as well as manufacturing/production processes which generate CO2 as a by-product). The greater production of fossil fuel use is actually for electicity production ... from coal, natural gas, and fuel oil, rather than simply saying "oil is used for transportation".

You'll not be replacing that electrical energy production with "green energy" anytime soon, nor will you see much in the way of commercial sized alternative energies projects come to fruition without subsidies to help make them competitive in the marketplace.

Unless you personally choose to move off-grid, generate your own clean energy, and use that to power your personal transportation as well as your domestic use ... you'll not have a means to simply go green, per your original post. Which is the question I raised with you in earnest in response to that post, as to how you were going to go green. But you'd rather ignore the honest question and attack me personally, right? So much easier to do than actually contributing meaningful exchange of information about what you'd do for the energy solution.

The present subsidies are not for fossil fuels, but for alternative energy sources. If we're going to stop subsidies, then it would stifle the alternative energy business. You may assert that coal and oil are a "dirty business", but you don't have a viable alternative, do you?

[Icy Tea]

Originally Posted by Stratford, Ct. Resident

It still has to go through the Senate.

>>>> But the senate is going straight down the sewer. Even moreso after yesterdays events.

[floridasandy]

the idiocy of our own country trying to sabotage our manufacturing capabilities is mindboggling. china is ramping up coal production. china will build 500 coal-fired power plants in the next decade, at the rate of almost one a week:

Xu Dingming, one of the men in charge of China's energy policy, says coal-fired power plants are the quickest solution to its urgent need for more power. Coal-fired power plants are not just bringing light to rural villages. They're also powering the factories that make up China's EXPLODING MANUFACTURING BASE. In the past year, China has added generating capacity that is equal to the whole of France's electricity grid.

our representatives are not looking out for AMERICA's future.

[scuba steve]

I'm more worried about what they say about retrofitting existing houses at the time of sale, or paying a tax if you don't. Even if something like an air conditioner has an energy star label, the standards change over time. It should be like other code items - if a house was built back when two-wire outlets were standard, it is what it is.

[tallrick]

I have yet to find a single person who supports crap and take. This whole scheme proves that the legislature is controlled by powers we cannot even identify. No matter how they vote the people will put another puppet in their place or simply re-elect them, so what do they care? What a terrible way to destroy business and hit the American citizen where it hurts to support powers we cannot even see. All for something nobody wants, just like the bailouts were rejected by the American people.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by sunsprit

Thanks for the medical advice ... unfortunately, it doesn't address the overall issues you brought up and is rather insultingly condescending upon your part to assert I only want to argue for the gratification of argument. And yes, I'm well aware of "straw man" arguments, as I'll bet, most of the posters here are. How utterly condescending you are to all of them, too, as if that is in any way responsive to the thread.

I called your "questions" strawman because that is clearly what they were. Fake questions presented with your own fake answers. Again, if you are sincere in this, we can be sincere. I agree that there tends to be a knowledgeable crew here in the business section, save when the political trolls appear, so I do not even follow why you would use the strawman approach.

Anyway, "Cap and trade" is directed to all forms of carbon dioxide production. So, it's not limited to the consumption of oil, but all forms of combustion of fossil fuels (as well as manufacturing/production processes which generate CO2 as a by-product). The greater production of fossil fuel use is actually for electicity production ... from coal, natural gas, and fuel oil, rather than simply saying "oil is used for transportation".

Well, no, transportation is the US largest sector of oil consumption. And yes, electricity production is dominated by coal. What I am saying is that it is well past time we started taking them both off-line and replace them with a common cure. At the large scale, transition the electricity production to renewables, and transition the transportation to electric.

But my original observation was that folks can trend this way on their own and not have to wait on the corporacracy marketplace to figure this out.

You'll not be replacing that electrical energy production with "green energy" anytime soon, nor will you see much in the way of commercial sized alternative energies projects come to fruition without subsidies to help make them competitive in the marketplace.

The only real limiting factor towards electricity source replacement is how fast the market can absorb new production. Solar Thermal aka Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) can already beat Coal on electricity production prices.

Unless you personally choose to move off-grid, generate your own clean energy, and use that to power your personal transportation as well as your domestic use ... you'll not have a means to simply go green, per your original post. Which is the question I raised with you in earnest in response to that post, as to how you were going to go green. But you'd rather ignore the honest question and attack me personally, right? So much easier to do than actually contributing meaningful exchange of information about what you'd do for the energy solution.

In truth, I have not seen an honest question from you. Did I miss it?

btw, I do not tend to use terms such as "go green," as it seems much more a marketing concept rather than a path or a practice.

While I do work on Coal, Oil and other various Chem and waste stream sites, I have also done Hydro, Solar PV, Solar Thermal, and some Wind. Of all of those Solar Thermal looks like it has the most promise for wide spread expansion -- btw, it does not generate nor use CO2 as part of its function or existence.

On the personal side I figured that eating was more important than driving, so I started with an Electric Farm -- operating from small scale Solar Thermal. We also took a look at our driving and dropped our mileage from around 25,000 miles a year to under 5,000. Next along that line will be biofuels/straight-up electric or a combination.

Stepping out larger, what I see for transportation in general in the US will require cooperation of all levels of industry, various governments, and that would be to take US off oil in favor of direct electric drive vehcles (not really battery -- more along the lines of getting power as it is used). But I would be inclined to present that as being cheaper, faster, and safer than oil -- which it is.

The present subsidies are not for fossil fuels, but for alternative energy sources. If we're going to stop subsidies, then it would stifle the alternative energy business. You may assert that coal and oil are a "dirty business", but you don't have a viable alternative, do you?

More of your own asked and self-answered questions?

In brief, you are incorrect. Fossil fuels are supported and subsided by permits to pollute. This is in both the motor fuels production and electricity generation domains with both oil and coal. They send up and dump back down on all of US -- Hg, SOx, NOx, O3, hydrocarbons, radioactive materials, particulates, as well as ground waste and liquids. Rather than bear the true cost of that pollution, they dump it all on US -- as well as the CO2 generation While I am not part of the CO2 / Cap and Trade argument, it is all part of the same process.

The limiting factor on conversion to Renewable is demand. The electricity market is already saturated. Stop the permits to pollute for oil and coal, and we could make the conversion, and cost US all less than the Oil and Coal they would replace. There are already over a million acres approved for Solar Thermal, just waiting on demand.

[Shuffler]

Another great example of Puppet Man's "hope and change"...

I hope to have some spare change left over after they're done wrecking our country by taxing us down to nothing if this nonsense is implemented.

[wheelsup]

Algae fuel is a great renewable, carbon neutral resource that is being worked on by Governments and private companies. It's expensive now ($20/gal) but will come down in price significantly if massed produced.

It's essentially a drop in replacement for light sweet crude.