U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 06-23-2009, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 4,610,353 times
Reputation: 806
Obama and Pelosi are pushing to get the House to vote on Cap & Trade by the end of the week.
U.S. House Leaders Schedule Climate-Change Bill Vote (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

 
Old 06-23-2009, 06:14 PM
 
Location: The beautiful Rogue Valley
4,086 posts, read 7,784,059 times
Reputation: 3251
Quote:
Originally Posted by my54ford View Post
The High Cost of Cap and Trade (http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/1050 - broken link)
What is the economic cost of reducing carbon-dioxide emissions, either by cap and trade or a direct tax?
Whether one accepts the claims that carbon emissions contribute to global warming, or prefers to give equal weight to contradictory evidence, there is no dispute that a cap-and-trade program would be costly. As to how costly, we should consider the article “Study the (scary) figures on cap and trade,” by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) in the Fort Worth Star Telegram for April 11, 2009. In it Barton noted: “[Cap and trade] is being sold as a way to save the planet by taxing ‘emitters,’ but it will kill the economy and decimate your family’s budget.”Barton made the following predictions of how cap and trade would affect the U.S. economy, citing the National Association of Manufacturers as his principal source:
• Job losses: 1.8 to 7 million
• Family tax increase: $739 to $6,752
• Electricity cost increases: 44 to 129 percent
• Gasoline price increases: 61 cents to $2.53 per gallon
• Natural gas increases: 108 to 146 percent
The CBO just released their assessment of cap-and-trade, and their estimate is that it will cost, on average, $175 per household.

Director’s Blog » Blog Archive » Estimated Costs to Households From the Cap-and-Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454

I'm not a huge fan of cap-and-trade as it is proposed, but I think the numbers that have been thrown around about it are grossly out of line.
 
Old 06-24-2009, 03:56 AM
 
1,359 posts, read 1,114,470 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
The CBO just released their assessment of cap-and-trade, and their estimate is that it will cost, on average, $175 per household.

Cap and Trade: A Handout for Corporations and a Huge Tax on Consumers

Cap and Trade: A Handout for Corporations and a Huge Tax on Consumers
 
Old 06-24-2009, 05:04 AM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 4,610,353 times
Reputation: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal View Post
The CBO just released their assessment of cap-and-trade, and their estimate is that it will cost, on average, $175 per household.

Director’s Blog » Blog Archive » Estimated Costs to Households From the Cap-and-Trade Provisions of H.R. 2454

I'm not a huge fan of cap-and-trade as it is proposed, but I think the numbers that have been thrown around about it are grossly out of line.
Concessions and give-aways have been made in the bill which are expected to lower the cost.

That $175 figure is for the year 2020, however, there are some factors in the CBO report which are noteworthy concerning the $175 figure.....

Quote:
The analysis does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency by specifying standards or subsidizing energy-saving investments. Director’s Blog » Climate Change
and
Quote:
those effects are described in the context of the current economy—that is, the costs that would result if the policies set for 2020 were in effect in 2010. Director’s Blog » Climate Change
and
[LEFT]
Quote:
In the aggregate, most of those costs would be offset by income or other benefits provided to households as a result of the distribution of the value of the emission allowances. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc...TradeCosts.pdf
[/LEFT]
and
Quote:
Most of those free allocations would be phased out over time, and by 2035, roughly 70 percent of the allowances would be sold by the federal government, with a large share of revenues returned to households on a per capita basis. Director’s Blog » Climate Change
There are a lot of "if's" which may/may not affect the cost to taxpayers ......
If the Feds actions do NOT increase costs to us via Fed efforts to speed the development of new tech
If the Feds actions do NOT increase costs to us via the cost of higher standards
If the Feds actions do NOT increase costs to us via subsidies
If the Feds return a large share of revenue to the public
 
Old 06-24-2009, 05:41 AM
 
21,924 posts, read 15,681,320 times
Reputation: 7067
Quote:
Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal View Post
I'm not a huge fan of cap-and-trade as it is proposed, but I think the numbers that have been thrown around about it are grossly out of line.
The CBO link only deals with the cost of the credits.

Quote:
The analysis does not include the effects of other aspects of the bill, such as federal efforts to speed the development of new technologies and to increase energy efficiency by specifying standards or subsidizing energy-saving investments.
The reason it has dropped is because they went from a full auction to allocating them, this FYI was what McCain was proposing during his campaign.

Having said that they were going to subsidize renewable energy and the other things contained in the bill through the money collected from auctioning the credits.
 
Old 06-24-2009, 05:42 AM
 
2,256 posts, read 3,411,590 times
Reputation: 724
Quote:
Originally Posted by vec101 View Post
Concessions and give-aways have been made in the bill which are expected to lower the cost.

That $175 figure is for the year 2020, however, there are some factors in the CBO report which are noteworthy concerning the $175 figure.

There are a lot of "if's" which may/may not affect the cost to taxpayers ......
If the Feds actions do NOT increase costs to us via Fed efforts to speed the development of new tech
If the Feds actions do NOT increase costs to us via the cost of higher standards
If the Feds actions do NOT increase costs to us via subsidies
If the Feds return a large share of revenue to the public
I don't believe there is any type of political solutions to this subject. This is like the cigarette tax fight that was so hard fought for back when Clinton was president. All those months of the evils of smoking News Reports, Documentaries, etc and when the tax hike passed, it was like shutting off a water faucet. No more evil news, no more documentaries, it was simply a smoke screen for acquiring more money from citizens. $30,000 of the tax money went to Rob (Meat Head) Rainer for a brochure in California on how to raise kids.

The politics of both sides is totally unable to solve anything. The real need is not necessarily new eco inventions , ideas, etc. Although those are important. But neither side has the ability to change people's attitudes and it's really their own fault since big gov on both sides has created the Joe/Jane Q Citizen in their own image.

Incidentally here is Mr O's official report a few days ago, well back on the 17th.

Climate Change in Our Backyards Video

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multil...leID=6223&l=en
 
Old 06-24-2009, 07:10 AM
 
24 posts, read 15,717 times
Reputation: 15
The EPA believes that Cap and Trade for SOx and NOx is the most cost effective regulatory program that they run. It was originally proposed by Republican to allow market mechanisms to accomplish policy purposes.
 
Old 06-24-2009, 08:59 AM
 
Location: Sonoita
227 posts, read 309,719 times
Reputation: 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truehorn View Post
The EPA believes that Cap and Trade for SOx and NOx is the most cost effective regulatory program that they run. It was originally proposed by Republican to allow market mechanisms to accomplish policy purposes.
Republicans will support whatever gets them elected. The religious right's influence is pretty much in the toilet now so supporting anything that makes them pro-biz gets the vote. Like they did with the religious right, most of them probably don't really care about this either except it opposes the evil Obama side of things. Ultimately that is the major issue here after reading some of these rightwing extremist posts.
 
Old 06-24-2009, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Charleston, WV
3,105 posts, read 4,610,353 times
Reputation: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona1 View Post
Republicans will support whatever gets them elected.
The sad thing is - the same thing can be said of our Democratic elected officials.
 
Old 06-24-2009, 10:05 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,294 posts, read 13,777,622 times
Reputation: 3653
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arizona1 View Post
Republicans will support whatever gets them elected. The religious right's influence is pretty much in the toilet now so supporting anything that makes them pro-biz gets the vote. Like they did with the religious right, most of them probably don't really care about this either except it opposes the evil Obama side of things. Ultimately that is the major issue here after reading some of these rightwing extremist posts.
Why not take your diatribe over to the Politics sub-forum?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top