Now that Obama is elected we are probably going to have a Cap and Trade program enacted, which McCain said he would do as well, and I was wondering how people are feeling about it.

Cap and Trade is the Global Warming Tax for our energy providers. Of course, since corporations do not really pay and taxes, YOU will pay the tax.

[url]www.marketwatch.com/news/story/obama-calls-pollution-cap-and-trade-program/story.aspx?guid={E704950B-F8D6-49EB-9C20-BCCECEB72374}[/url]

In a speech prepared for delivery in Portsmouth, N.H., the Illinois senator said the cap-and-trade plan would be the centerpiece of a wide-ranging set of measures designed to cut emissions of gases tied to global warming and weaning the United States off of dependence on oil.

Under a cap-and-trade plan, companies that produce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases receive or buy credits that give them the right to emit a certain amount.

Personally I feel this is more about starting a global taxation system than actually doing anything about global warming. I don't care if global warming is man made or not, we can still implement additional common sense regulations to minimize damage to the environment (insert crying indian commercial from the 70's here), I just don't think cap and trade is part of the answer.

There is also little regulation or research to back up the actual value of the credits purchased. The potential for fraud is enormous, as is the potential for a trade imbalance as now high manufacture/high pollution countries who do not adopt the system can severely undercut those that do.

I've always liked these kinds of systems, as it uses markets as a concept to help control pollution. As long as there is a fixed amount of credits, and every few years the government buys some to reduce supply, the cost to pollute will grow until real alternatives are explored.

There is way to much potential for fraud. It does nothing to see what the real issue is. It will be passed down to all of us. It is a bad idea.

Why would it be passed on to you? Production should decrease instead holding costs steady. If oil companies could charge you more money for their product why wouldn't they?

Pigovian taxes are viewed as a very good economic tool to be used by the state and it is supported by a large number of economists both on the left and on the right.

This has been used with great success in Europe. I like it because it provides a financial incentive for the company to change, as they can then turn around and sell their credits to other companies for profit.

and how is that working for them? Their taxes are higher than ours, they don't produce as much as we do and now they are revolting against those very same "green" measures.

But that is the point, we want less production of CO2.

Less children + less health benefits for people over 90. CO2 problem solved.

Who are you?

How much is gasoline in Europe again? I rest my case.

American's were having a fit when gas hit 4 dollars here. If this thing passes and they pass on the cost to the consumer, you can count on that being a nice price.

It was well over 5USD/gal in Italy back in 2003 I can't imagine what it is now.

The person you are speaking for, you told me what I wanted I figured I tell you how I wanted it done as well.

How does this "pass on" thing work because if companies can just raise the price of the good why wouldn't they?

Garborg's been posting here for ages =p Not as frequently as some, but still.

Your two proposals will not directly decrease CO2 production though.

Well really now, first you tell me that I want to lower CO2 output now you're telling me I need to lower it directly.

Sorry but I don't want to die from suffocation...

But killing off people won't lower CO2 production... Per capita CO2 production would INCREASE and total CO2 production would stay steady. International CO2 production would continue to increase with the industrialization of BRIC.



You dont know that we breathe oxygen and not carbon dioxide.

And who are you again and what are you doing in this thread?

c6h12o6

This is where you yell 'hike!' and go for a touchdown, right?

Are you fucking kidding me? Do I need to explain this?

Also...Does anyone else think CO2 production would increase with less humans on the planet?

If you're trolling, that's really retarded trolling.

Children and old people exhaling are not the source of our problems. As far your 'DUH FEWER PPL = LESS DUH'...ask China, since after all they do have fewer people with their one child policy. Yet their CO2 production has been steadily increasing.

DUN DUN DUNNNNN.

_________________

so what are we to do about the sun and those sunspots...

Make your own thread if you want to change the subject.

No, the sun is causing warming all across the Milky Way, how can we cap and trade against the sun?

We're talking about cap and trade for CO2 emissions. Again, go make your own thread if you want to talk about cap and trade for the sun's energy (which of course makes no sense, but hey-- you go ahead and sell it to us!)

I still prefer a carbon tax...

Holy shit! The Sun is a quasar!

A carbon tax of whom, by whom?

A carbon tax of carbon dioxide by the government. It is a Pigouvian tax where the tax corrects for an externality, pollution. It provides more information to the consumer so that the consumer can make even a decision.

Even a better decision for that last line.

In terms of prime pollution, there is not much of a decision to make concerning gasoline and electricity. Without twerking with profit margins what is the incentive to not pass this cost down? And how would this address taxation of imported goods? The average Chinese good, for instance, would receive a terrible rating.

I think the opposite would be more practical. Give a scaling tax credit for adherence to cleaner standards. That's being done now in a roundabout way.

Electricity does not need to be produced from carbon based fuels. This will put those non-carbon sources at a HUGE advantage.

Also, explain this "pass the cost down" idea because it makes absolutely no economic sense. If companies could raise the cost of their goods right now they would. Any increase in tax will be met buy a decrease in production and an increase in non-carbon based energy sources.

By current regulations, carbon based sources are the only economically viable sources. Taxing at a higher rate will not change that unless the tax is draconian. That is why the tax credit system has worked far better than simply increasing cost through regulation.

Per watt costs are significantly higher for any technology other than nuclear or carbon fuels. To regulate them by taxation, will give advantage to the non-carbon sources, but those sources are more expensive and consumer costs would increase. If we are to assume the alternative sources would be pursued at all in such a case.

If a company incurs additional cost to produce an end item, that end item will not become more expensive? Addition or removal of taxation does not allow or disallow a company to increase their cost. The price the market allows does. The tax would increases their cost of doing business across the board and across their sector. That is a factor in the value of their good. Eating that cost does not make fiscal sense either. Nor does retooling if that cost is higher than simply paying the tax.

If it cost more to make goods then companies will do one of two things:

1) Increase the cost of their goods to maintain margins
2) Cut expenses in other areas to maintain margins

If they don't do one of those two then they will:

3) lose money and possibly go out of business.

When option #2 and #3 happen people lose jobs. When companies have to cut expenses they look at labor. They will either not hire that extra worker or lay others off.

Businesses are not in business just for the good of society. They are in business to make money. They need to maintain certain profit margins to remain in business. Most of the time the laws of supply and demand drive what suppliers can charge.

You also have to look at the ripple effect this will have. Look at how the cost of EVERYTHING went up when the price of gas went up. If company A needs widgets to make its product and company B makes widgets and company B is taxed for creating widgets then they will sell their widgets to company A for more to try to maintain their margins. Company A now has to face an increased cost of supplies (widgets) and increased expenses (idiot tax) and they will have to raise their cost to their consumers to try to maintain their margins.

A Cap and Trade tax will affect everyone. Your pizza delivery will cost more, your groceries will cost more, heating/cooling your house will cost more, your clothes will cost more, your transportation will cost more, your garbage removal will cost more. Everything. If they don't then the quality will go down.

A decrease in production will result in decrease in workforce resulting in fewer people able to buy products resulting in smaller demand of the product resulting in further need for the product with the end result of companies going out of business.

Why would you want to tax businesses out of business just because of a theory that is not proven? Why do we want to punish our production when other countries (read: China and India) will not do the same? Why then will you complain that production and manufactuing jobs have left our country and gone to places that don't have such taxes? Why will you not complain that produce from Mexico actually has a larger impact to the environment than produce we could have produced here but due to extra taxation it is more cost effective to grow them in another country and ship it here?

Our economic situation is critical. Putting extra burden on our businesses in the name of "global warming" is not what we need to do. If we do anything we should reward companies that run with a smaller environmental impact. Provide companies with ways to reduce costs and you will see a much larger impact.

Does that help explain it?

Are you talking about cap and trade because I am not, I am talking about a carbon tax. The two are different.

Only because they do not have to account for their externalities.



I bolded something for ya. I am curious how you think nuclear power has a carbon cost. Nuclear power has to account for their externalities even before the plans are signed off. Coal power does not.



You are correct, and this is in direct conflict with your previous statement on "passing on the cost". Companies will ether figure out how to do it carbon free or fail. There will be some brilliant entrepreneurs who will develop new carbon free products, that today have no benefit (besides being good for the earth) but after we account for the carbon externalities will be much better.

So much of your post is true krby, but half true. It's been a while since I gave any serious effort to a post, so I'll give it a shot here. What the hell-- it's Christmas!



True-- *sometimes*. When option #2 happens, people don't *always* lose jobs. You present these things like it's an inevitability, when it's not. For example, while fuel costs rose dramatically over the last few years, 100s of companies managed to continue without cutting jobs all over the country. Some did, and some did not.

Will costs be passed on to consumers? Sure. The neat thing is what happens next. Company A and Company B sell widgets and pollute, and have to pay for a lot of carbon credits on the market. Company A says, "we want to make more money. Let's invest in cleaner technology so we don't have to buy those carbon credits. Now we can lower our price and sell more widgets than Company B!" Company B says, "now we have to invest in cleaner technology to be competitive with Company A." Around and around it goes-- we have real, direct monetary incentive for people to be clean and to be successful.

Right now you and people like you claim that the market alone should be enough incentive for such clean technology. "If people want it bad enough, markets will provide!" is the mantra, despite demonstrable evidence that it doesn't. See, when companies pollute, they often never have to pay the direct cost to do so. It simply affects us all. In fact, the incentive is to NOT invest in cleaner technology, for as long as you can get away with it.



More of the same, but again you don't consider the added incentive all this has on companies to find ways to reduce those costs. Be clean, and you can offer your goods cheaper than your neighbor. Profit. Win.



The lack of a Cap and trade tax affects everyone too. The pollution it is designed to help limit costs us billions in asthma, cancer, etc. All these drive up our health costs, driving up our insurance, driving up the cost of employers to have employees, driving up the price of goods, etc etc etc. Since it's not a *direct* cost, however, you seem unwilling to see it all around us.

Cap and Trade give incentive for a company to be clean so they can be cheaper than everyone else, allowing them to profit.



See, this is a huge jump you make in your posts which is simply exaggeration. "Tax them out of business?" No evidence, but this is the jump you have to make to try to get your point across. I also believe the idea that it isn't proven is not really correct, either. The idea involves taking basic principals of capitalistic marketing and applying it to pollution. The beauty of the general design of such systems is that it simply works like any other market-- markets we've studied and theorized about for the last 150 years. It's hardly a fly-by-night idea-- it's application of proven principles we've seen around us work in many other types of markets all over the world.



I'm glad you brought up outsourcing of jobs. Why are you upset about jobs leaving the country? Why punish the production of companies by insisting they use high cost labor here?

Do you see the parallel between that subject and what you are objecting to here yet? If you are ok with insisting on companies using American labor, but are opposed to insisting on companies be clean, do you at least see the inconsistency?

In other subjects, if other countries will not do the same, we can implement tariffs on their goods. In my opinion if other companies have poor labor standards, or poor pollution standards, I have no problem with us as a country saying, "we will not trade with you, or we will make your goods more expensive, because of how you treat your people and your environment." I believe that's called "fair trade," and that would certainly protect our companies here striving for a higher standard.

Or, we could just keep on polluting in the name of "fairness," until some day in our future, or our grandchildren's future, we can simply no longer live in our country in a healthy manner.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

I see no conflict, except perhaps if we're operating under the assumption that both technologies are equal in implementation and production cost.

The fuel, coolant, and expendable components that a nuclear plant requires to operate have a carbon footprints. The amount of pollution per watt is what is decreased with the technology. And of course the number of plants required, each of which draws other resources; chiefly water.

There is no need for fuel, coolant and expendable components to have a carbon footprint. They have a carbon footprint today because we are not accounting for the externalities of the CO2 production of fossil fuels. There is no reason why they should in the future.

So China's incrased CO2 production is due to their one child policy and has nothing to do with their indrustrialization... geee thanks for the clarification.

And I really can't fathom Tarot would believe China's CO2 incraese from their industrial boom would be less with more people.... I have too much respect for your intellegance. But maybe Lany's fell into the Twilight Zone.

Methinks the lines do not connect to the dots in the way that you are drawing them.

That seems arbitrary as it leaves the regulation space floating. Basing it on something like a % decrease goal means different things to different sectors.

Industry produces a lot of CO2 via means other than burning fuels. Waste is downconverted with the gas as a byproduct as a means of controlling other pollution sources. Mining and purification of nuclear fuel certainly does. The impurities in the mined ore are carbons and oxides. Curiously the environmental trends in the 70s and 80s encouraged this.