Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I read that Cap and Trade is a dead isuue (at least for now).
Then I read it is probably a dead issue
Quote:
Do the math. That leaves only 32 Democratic senators from less-than-average coal-reliant states and only 157 Democratic House members from less-than-average coal-reliant states. Now I'm not saying that every member from such states will vote against cap-and-trade, but I think an awful lot would. And I don't think many Republicans are going to vote for cap-and-trade. In his press conference last night, Barack Obama seemed to accept the Senate Budget Committee's Democrats' decision to jettison the money for cap-and-trade and expressed a wistful hope that something might be done later. But even in better economic times, the numbers tend to work against any such proposal. Obama Cap-and-Trade Will Meet Coal-Fired Energy Political Opposition - CBS News
Horray!!! Good thing too, as well as all the other negative effects....
Quote:
U.S. electricity prices are likely to rise 15 to 30 percent if a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions is instituted, according to a report by Moody's Investors Service. U.S. carbon cap to raise power prices: Moody's | Reuters
The George C. Marhsall Institute is a conservative think tank here in DC that is known for being, how should I say this...overly friendly with the energy companies and their political agendas. That alone makes me question the validity of their data. I'm not here to debate Global Warming as I have varying opinions on it, but they also object to most conventional scientific beliefs in that field.
As for prices increasing because of Cap and Trade, the emergy companies are always looking for something else to label as a scapecoat in their endless quest to gouge the American people. .............
I'm glad that wonderful piece of neo-con work also known as the Washington Times decided to do a story on it. I've never seen them print something that didn't make the Republican Party look like the savior of this nation. I guess since they can no longer write endless praise about Bush they have to move on and slam Democratic agendas while offering no solutions themselves.
It always amuses me that people who do not agree with an issue attack the messenger.
The Feds themselves (CBO) also conducted a report which concludes Cap and Trade would have a negative effect on our economy.
Besides imposing costs on the economy, a cap-and-trade program would transfer income from some people to others.
Researchers conclude that much or all of the allowance cost would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices....
Those price increases would disproportionately affect people at the bottom of the income scale.
For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the price rises resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions would cost the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of the income distribution about 3.3 percent of its average income. By comparison, a household in the top quintile would pay about 1.7 percent of its average income (see Table 1).4 ......
Producers and Workers Would Bear Transitional Costs ……..
would experience costs in the form of lower wages, job losses, and reduced stock values
A cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions would tend to increase government spending and decrease revenues.
Like other consumers, the government would face higher prices for energy and other carbon-intensive goods and services.
In addition, by leading to a decline in the production of such goods and services, the cap would cause a decline in the taxes collected on corporate profits.
I basically agree with you. Conservatives don't want to burn energy either, even if the reasons are different than those of the liberals. Some of the worst offenders are in the Northeast. People in that region are quick to blame coal producers for alarmist global warming problems (the polar icecap actually expanded this year, but that will be ignored or treated as an aboration). Yet they are the real culprits. Their infrastructure is woefully inadequate... roads designed for 1930s traffic snarled with traffic creating pollution from vehicles on idle. They have little in the way of natural gas infrastructure resulting in people burning oil to heat their homes (actually worse than coal since it increases the Nation's dependence on foreign sources). The whiners are those who do the least to solve the problem and are a disproportionate part of it.
If Obama were to put a cap and trade on home heating oil instead of coal, he might actually accomplish something. The tax on coal accomplishes nothing because the country has no choice but to burn it for electricity in the foreseeable future. The tax is plain idiotic, and will only serve to make American industry less competitive and unemployed Americans pay far more for their energy needs.
I live in a rural area in New England and NO I do not use any oil to heat my house. I use: fireplace, pellet stove, passive solar, electric, and propane. So I actually five heat sources for my 1400sqft house. The wood I use for heat comes off my land and is cut selectively. My overall heating costs are much lower than others due to wood, pellets, and passive solar.
Most newer construction houses use propane instead of heating oil.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't attacking you, just questioning the validity of some of those studies. You cited doomsday GDP calculations from a think tank that supported the Reagan star wars boondoggle, tries to blur the connection between tobacco use and cancer and whose current CEO has been and still is registered as a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Think they might be a little biased? You don't work for Fox News or the Washington Times (that I know of) so again I don't see how my calling them out on their political bias relates to you.
That Congressional Budget Office study you just supplied is already two years old and says that the brief was prepared from past publications some of which date back to 2000. That also happens to be the base year for the income figures they use for the calculations provided in terms of cost increases. There is also a lot of fine print under Table 1...the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says "CBO assumed that the full cost of cutting emissions would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices and that the price increase for a given product would be proportional to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the atmosphere." That's a pretty long list of assumptions.
How much income have the energy companies drained from the lower one-fifth (quintile) earners in the last few years during record prices? I'd like to see numbers for that. Again it's all relative but I don't understand how energy companies in the wake of this Cap and Trade legislation are suddenly somehow stewards of the lower income earners.
Your claim to always be "the messenger" on these issues but you often act like a PR person for the coal industry. If we're on those terms then you often "attack the messenger" if they don't agree with you on issues like mountaintop removal or support alternative energy sources such as windmills. I normally wouldn't bring stuff like that up but you can't sit there and call me out for something while doing the same thing on similar topics yourself. That's not how I play.
Last edited by NOVAmtneer82; 03-26-2009 at 10:16 PM..
I live in a rural area in New England and NO I do not use any oil to heat my house. I use: fireplace, pellet stove, passive solar, electric, and propane. So I actually five heat sources for my 1400sqft house. The wood I use for heat comes off my land and is cut selectively. My overall heating costs are much lower than others due to wood, pellets, and passive solar.
Most newer construction houses use propane instead of heating oil.
Like you, I supplement my heating bill with firewood cut from my own property. Also like you, I am forced to use ineffecient and expensive propane as a supplemental energy source. Having adequate infrastructure would eliminate the need for expensive (and for the wackos, greenhouse gas producing) delivery of energy by truck. Many, especially in the more urban areas of New England, burn oil for their primary heat source.
Just when I read Cap and Trade is probably dead for now, Obama slides on in the back door....
In today's paper
Quote:
.... After eight years on the sidelines, the U.S. says it is ready for a central role in developing a new agreement to slash greenhouse gases. ....
In a rare move, State Department climate envoy Todd Stern joined the rest of the U.S. delegation in Bonn, Germany, for the first of a series of largely technical meetings that begin Sunday. ........ participants "will be very excited'' to hear Stern outline the basic principles that will guide the U.S.
.........there is now a Democratic-controlled Congress moving to embrace mandatory limits on greenhouse gases.
But President Barack Obama has acted to reduce U.S. greenhouse gases and wants Congress to pass a cap-and-trade program that would cut global warming pollution 80 percent by mid-century.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't attacking you, just questioning the validity of some of those studies. You cited doomsday GDP calculations from a think tank that supported the Reagan star wars boondoggle, tries to blur the connection between tobacco use and cancer and whose current CEO has been and still is registered as a lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Think they might be a little biased? You don't work for Fox News or the Washington Times (that I know of) so again I don't see how my calling them out on their political bias relates to you.
That Congressional Budget Office study you just supplied is already two years old and says that the brief was prepared from past publications some of which date back to 2000. That also happens to be the base year for the income figures they use for the calculations provided in terms of cost increases. There is also a lot of fine print under Table 1...the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says "CBO assumed that the full cost of cutting emissions would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices and that the price increase for a given product would be proportional to the amount of carbon dioxide emitted from the atmosphere." That's a pretty long list of assumptions.
How much income have the energy companies drained from the lower one-fifth (quintile) earners in the last few years during record prices? I'd like to see numbers for that. Again it's all relative but I don't understand how energy companies in the wake of this Cap and Trade legislation are suddenly somehow stewards of the lower income earners.
Your claim to always be "the messenger" on these issues but you often act like a PR person for the coal industry. If we're on those terms then you often "attack the messenger" if they don't agree with you on issues like mountaintop removal or support alternative energy sources such as windmills. I normally wouldn't bring stuff like that up but you can't sit there and call me out for something while doing the same thing on similar topics yourself. That's not how I play.
Excuse me, but there was no star wars boondoggle. Maintaining a decided edge in military technology is what has enabled us to keep the western world free for wacko morons to criticize every endeavor that is not self flagilating, and it saves American lives in the process. When we stop developing the technology to keep that edge, we are inviting the attacks from rogue nations that could kill hundreds of thousands of our people. Some of those entities have capabilities that would make the thousands killed in the WTC attacks seem mild by comparison.
Things happening in govt is directly related to the prospect of a collapse but I'm trying to keep the political talk part of the issue off DK's Collapse site.
Since I started this thread and it's political - I am now deeming it OK to cover all politics here
?? OK with you Comrade Georgia?
The WH has coerced a private citizen to leave his job (GM exec) and has told Chrysler they must merge with an Italian company or no loan $$.
Wonder how/if all this will affect the auto related industry (inc dealerships) in WV? See excerp from letter below:
In letter from Chrysler CEO:
Quote:
As a condition of the U.S. government loan agreement, all constituents will be asked to contribute to Chrysler’s restructuring effort including: lenders, employees, the UAW, dealers, suppliers and Chrysler Financial. Fiat, Chrysler, & Cerberus Announce “Global Strategic Alliance”
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
