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.
Keep repeating, "I will not be the child left behind. I will learn to read." By switching to renewable electricity, which raise the average electricity rate by 0.06 cents per kWh, we meet the 20% RES and as proposed we will be below the cap. Below the cap: no allowances to buy. Not much of an issue is it.
Let me try to dumb it down. You don't care how much the state charges for speeding tickets if you don't speed.
Below the cap: no allowances to buy. Not much of an issue is it.
So that brings us back to the Obama administration being highly incompetent in their estimates, is that the case?
Getting back to your document you're citing, again the fine print below the part where it cites
Quote:
These costs reflect the model inputs and could vary significantly with different fossil fuel price assumptions, carbon taxes or caps, or additional breakthroughs in renewable technologies.
Significantly is pretty stong term isn't it? Guess it's back to the video huh?
Let me dumb it down for you, not only do the estimates in this document not take into account the cost of the cap and trade to power generation it doesn't even begin to associate the other costs that will be introduced to other industries like the cement industry I previously cited. The cement industry is going to be taking it from both ends paying higher electric rates and increased costs in their own production methods due to Cap and Tax.
Open your eyes man, no matter which you try to spin this it all comes back to costing the consumer a huge sum of money. Back in the real world a report from the CBO specifically on the costs of Cap and Trade:
The price increases caused by a cap-and-trade program would impose additional costs on households. For example, without incorporating any benefits to households from lessening climate change, CBO estimates that the price increases resulting from a 15 percent cut in CO2 emissions could cost the average household roughly $1,600 (in 2006 dollars), ranging from nearly $700 in additional costs for the average household in the lowest one-fifth (quintile) of all households arrayed by income, to about $2,200 for the average household in the highest quintile.
So that brings us back to the Obama administration being highly incompetent in their estimates, is that the case?
Getting back to your document you're citing, again the fine print below the part where it cites
Significantly is pretty stong term isn't it? Guess it's back to the video huh?
Let me dumb it down for you, not only do the estimates in this document not take into account the cost of the cap and trade to power generation it doesn't even begin to associate the other costs that will be introduced to other industries like the cement industry I previously cited. The cement industry is going to be taking it from both ends paying higher electric rates and increased costs in their own production methods due to Cap and Tax.
Open your eyes man, no matter which you try to spin this it all comes back to costing the consumer a huge sum of money. Back in the real world a report from the CBO specifically on the costs of Cap and Trade:
The good news is that we'll get to find out who's right because Cap & Trade is going to be implemented.
There's a reference in there to a MIT study that puts the cost at about $3,100 per household per year which the GOP often cites. One author of the study disputes the GOP's assertions however he does not dispute the cost of $3,100 per household but instead argues that some of that money will be returned to the consumers therefore the cost will be less to them.
In other words if the study is correct it's going to cost every household $3,100 up front and it will be returned through rebates. Of course the more money you make the less likely you are to get anything back.
There's a reference in there to a MIT study that puts the cost at about $3,100 per household per year which the GOP often cites. One author of the study disputes the GOP's assertions however he does not dispute the cost of $3,100 per household but instead argues that some of that money will be returned to the consumers therefore the cost will be less to them.
In other words if the study is correct it's going to cost every household $3,100 up front and it will be returned through rebates. Of course the more money you make the less likely you are to get anything back.
Keyphrase being "If the study is correct".
From the 3rd paragraph of that factcheck link.
Quote:
The GOP's partisan claim of a $3,100 per household cost increase is far higher than figures produced by other studies.
Well there's many different ranges but they all have a cost. There's a lot of unknown variables involved. For example if the cost of energy is astronomical people may simply stop using it but that's not progress is it? Another variable is how much the cost of credits will be, the CBO document cites a possibility of between $50 billion and $300 billion in 2020 which is an enormous gap.
Quote:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc..._Testimony.pdf
In establishing a cap-and-trade program, policymakers would create a new commodity: the right to emit CO2. The emission allowances would have substantial value. On the basis of a review of the existing literature and the range of CO2 policies now being debated, CBO estimates that by 2020, the value of those allowances could total between $50 billion and $300 billion annually (in 2006 dollars).
Well there's many different ranges but they all have a cost. There's a lot of unknown variables involved. For example if the cost of energy is astronomical people may simply stop using it but that's not progress is it? Another variable is how much the cost of credits will be, the CBO document cites a possibility of between $50 billion and $300 billion in 2020 which is an enormous gap.
Oops, I forgot.
The study's author, which the GOP cites, says that they are using his study incorrectly.
Quote:
The MIT professor behind the study immediately responded, saying the Republicans had “misrepresented” his data, which showed a cost that was more than 40x less.
Hard for me to come to a conclusion based on your last post.
If CBO thinks the credits will cost between $50 and $300 billion, what conclusion are we supposed to reach regarding extra cost to the average household?
Do you think its a waste of time to try and limit CO2?
That this is all cost, no benefit?
If so, there's not much point in further discussion (I know better than to waste time with those who are certain global warming is not human related).
Oops, I forgot.
The study's author, which the GOP cites, says that they are using his study incorrectly.
That's what I said above. Depends on how you want interpret it but it's certainly not completely bunk. The figures the GOP is citing are in the MIT study plain as day. What the author is saying is that some of that money will be given back to each household or business's which will lower the $3100 figure.
We're charging John $3100 and we're charging Joe $3100, Joe can't afford it so we'll rebate him $3100 which effectively makes it $1500 per household but tell that to John who's middle class and doesn't get a rebate. Joe isn't getting $3100 back though because the cost of this will be distributed through every consumable product on the market. The overall burden of this will be paid by the middle class.
I mentioned it in my original post in this thread:
Quote:
It's too big a plum to pick where they can indirectly tax the consumer, the consumer won't see Uncle Sam's name on the bill they'll see their power companies name, the grocery stores name on the bill, the oil companies name on the bill and on down the list. They'll lay the blame on business. The Democrats will ride it for all it's worth demonizing the power companies and business for the exorbitant prices. Then they will be able to play Robin Hood with part of the 1 to 2 trillion dollars they collect and give the money back to the poor through subsidization because the evil power companies are charging them so much.
-------------------------
Quote:
If CBO thinks the credits will cost between $50 and $300 billion, what conclusion are we supposed to reach regarding extra cost to the average household?
Partly depends on how the language in the final bill is written but as I understand it right now it's leaning towards the higher end of the scale.
Quote:
Do you think its a waste of time to try and limit CO2?
Certainly not convinced. I've read enough contradictory opinions from people much smarter than myself on the subject to have doubts. That's besides all the flaws and the politics within the IPCC.
It's certainly quite possible to convert to renewable energy and is undoubtedly the future but in the meantime I don't want to be living in third world country as the Chinese and Indian economies continue to grow fueled by cheap coal energy. If you wan to do this and do it right you need to get the politics out of it and that includes both the legislation and the science it's based on. Just a matter of time before the technology becomes competitive, at that point they'll have private investors lining up out the door.
At this point they're lining up for a government handout, no incentive to improve, no incentive to make it competitive.
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.
