The House passed the Cap and Trade bill today. link

From Obama's own admission get ready for your energy costs to "skyrocket" and from the CBO an loss of an additional 2 million jobs.

What a STUPID time to pass such legislation that is ripe with fraud and won't impact the enviroment anyhow.

Looks like a good time to buy that tree farm and soak up the cash for credits.

Great, I work at home and *have* to run the a/c. Fuck it, I'm going to have my accountant figure out how much of the bill is the a/c, since I work all day and wouldn't be here 10+ hours during the hottest part of the day if I didn't work at home (and thus it would be off or MUCH lower). Then I'm deducting it as a business expense. I already get to do that with about 20% of the mortgage

_________________

These are the times I appreciate that I have free heat in my apartment and that if i do move to a house most of them have wood stoves lol...

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

Oh never mind I read the article...an extra $175 a year? I'm FINE with that.

_________________

Skyrocket, eh? Please.

ps: heat ain't expensive, AC is what gets you

what the fuck is up with the government... are they so fucking disconected from the "real" world that they think this is the best thing they can do to help the econmy right now?

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

ZOMG! SOCIALISTS! SKYNET! ACORN! BARNEY FRANK! GURLGLESPLUTTER! CENSUS TAKERS! DECEPTICONS! FRANCE!

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Except hot summers don't bother me. It was 135F in turkey lol....I liked it. I'm a TOTAL pussy when it gets cold out though...so the heat gets cranked up.

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

You'll be the dream guy for most women then. Me, I'm the exact opposite.

_________________

the $175 was the estimate from a very friendly source to the whitehouse. There are estimates that have the increase as much as +$3000.00 per family. Not to mention that EVERYTHING else will cost more and there will be MORE jobs shipped overseas due to businesses not willing to pay the extra bullshit tax to keep jobs here.

If this thing passes the Senate we are all fucked.

Can we get a source on the 3k estimate? Your article itself says the Republicans were suggesting $770 per household. That's a pretty large leap from both $175 and $770.

I'm not quite sure how the CBO is "very" friendly with the White House either. They've been critical of the Obama admin in the past, especially with regard to his health care proposals.

This looks like a good article if you really want to dig. This particular issue isn't as near and dear to me as others, so I've not read much on it.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/ ... state.html

Can't you make up those differences by driving less / combining trips - weather proofing your house.. etc...

I think the bill is brilliant.

_________________

Why?

Let's just skip 2 pages of typing and you call me a stupid liberal that is going to ruin the country and I'll call you a short sighted FOX news parrot and we can use the extra time to do something more productive.

_________________

No we cannot make up the difference personally. This affects industry. Like, say, the auto companies we're trying to keep afloat and keep within our borders.

I just wanted to know if you could say why you liked it. Like I said, I've not read up on it.

_________________

I like how on one hand you say the $175 is from a "very friendly source" to the white house, while at the same time trying to gloss over the fact that the +$3k figure comes from a "very unfriendly source" to the white house.

_________________

Sources that agree with me are more reliable, didn't you know how that works?

Assuming that companies can trade with each other the allowances to pollute, and the government can slowly buy them back to remove them from the system, I think this is a wonderful bill.

Republicans say they like the idea of markets determining policy, but when a market is created for pollution, they are against it.

I'm sorry you guys don't like it, but I think, like the article says, that this is a triumph for Obama. I've wanted to see a cap and trade system for years.

And yes-- let's see the source for the 3k number please. I bet it's from someone like Rush or one of his "news" cohorts!

You realize, of course, that we already pay the costs of this pollution in other ways. There are billions of dollars in extra costs we incur because of the pollution companies force on us. I don't see any of you bitching about that, but I suppose that's because it's not the ebil government doing it. This type of system provides a market based solution to force companies to remove some of that extra cost they force on us.

$175 a year is worth every penny. And I trust that number from the CBA a whole lot more than the unnamed source of the OMG $3000!!!!!! number.

BTW, "prepare for your cost of living to skyrocket" is the stupidest tinfoil hat Chicken Little topic title you have come up with so far. Congrats!

This just in from Fox News!

ARE YOU ALL GOING TO DIE?!?!

Jesus (R) will face off against Satan (D) in defense of our souls and - more importantly - our money!

Now, now. Give Fox some credit.

They only use the question mark when they know they aren't telling the truth. So obviously, that doesn't apply here. In this case it would be:

YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Since that is a true statement, after all.

_________________

If 90% of the funds raised go to developing new infrastructure and technology for solar. I'm all for it.

Nuclear please. Thanks.

Yeah, but then you have nuclear waste buried in your back yard, mutating your children.

Duh.

_________________

Raising energy prices to all consumers is disastrous. For home consumers it would mean less money to spend on goods and services. And for corporate consumers they would have to shift production to overseas even more to maintain their profit margin. Which would mean more jobs lost here in the U.S.. So while Cap and Trade might seem like a noble idea it is fundamentally flawed. Until we are allowed to actually transition to more nuclear. We are still going to be tied to fossil fuels.

Then why do they keep doing it?

They could lower prices by cutting into their record breaking profit, but do they?

Sorry, but none of those arguments hold ground considering we will continue to pay whatever they decide to charge us.

_________________

We tried letting the free market magic work but companies have continued to sit on their ass with regard to using energy efficiently and not polluting.

I feel for the mom and pop stores that are teetering on the edge with this pushing them over, but I think this will generally help separate some of the good businesses from the bad. Those that cannot learn to be more efficient and cut costs to overcome this will for the most part deserve to fail.

Bread that cost you $2.10 is going to cost you $2.50 as an example after this bill is signed into law. Make no mistake we are going to end up paying more out of our pocket than a simple electric or gas bill. It doesn't make any difference how big the company is from mom and pop to international corporations they are in it to make a profit.

And the difference between this and last year when energy prices skyrocketed is??

Energy costs are cheap in say Venezuela.. why in the world would any company come to America over that country... hmmm...

I would rather be fucked by my govt. than by big business or oil cartels. At least with my own govt. I have a sense that I could do something about it... no matter how false that may be.

Point being... When it is big business and wall street jacking up our prices to make a buck, Repubs are fine with it. When it is our own govt. doing it for a somewhat worthy cause... /gasp how dare them

_________________

Which is precisely the reason it may well open up competition and innovation. The companies that raise their prices instead of finding ways to cut costs and innovate may have a rude awakening when they find people have moved on to different products, new ways of attaining said products, or new innovative ways to attain the same benefits of the product for the person.

I'm not saying there aren't costs to a company for this, but this is something that they should have been paying for anyway but bypassing due to lack of concern for the environment.

Think of it like some of the modern bans on deceitful advertising. Or maybe the surgeon general's warning for cigarettes. "But it might hurt profits!!". Well, it most certainly will, but plenty of industries have been able to make due after being told what they were doing was wrong and they'd pay for it.

Some companies may or may not run themselves out of business while raising prices. Time will tell, and it depends on the willingness of the consumer to go along with it.

Venen, you're an idiot. If you honestly think the oil companies are not constantly looking for ways to make things in a more efficient and more environment friendly way, you're a dumbass.

Here is what will happen with this bill. The Mom and Pop companies will have to raise prices just to try and survive, the larger companies will join them in passing on the costs of this bill to the consumer. Mom and Pops will fail left and right and big companies will be all that is left and they will set the prices that they want with less competition forcing them to control prices.

Travel to Europe and then complain that our gas prices are out of control.

No shit heh.

I'm sure that they are looking for ways, but ONLY to the extent at which the public will be content with them. Actually caring about the environment and their impact is another thing entirely, the concern lies with profits. If the free market were to truly work here, we'd probably need to account for both the lacking of the public's care about the environment(to which companies respond to in order to maintain profits) and the company's willingness to look beyond profits(I know... rarity this day in age, but companys do exist with dual motives).

Your scenario may or may not happen. It's one of several possible outcomes. I maintain that it's still possible that being economically squeezed is not a win/win situation for big companies, and that good entrepreneurialship can emerge from it. Again, it largely depends on how consumers react and how willing they are to move to different products in a struggling economy.

No complaints about gas here, though, and have been to Europe. I've stated in the past I think it would be a blessing for gas prices to go up due to artificial inflation so that we ween ourselves off it before it becomes a particulraly endangered commodity.

I agree entirely. The environment is not a company's responsibility, I'm sorry. Now, when we force a company to rethink things with poor PR? That's the free market in action.

As for monopolies and shit that don't necessarily have to react as quickly? That's another matter entirely.

This relies on the public to be smart enough to be in an outrage about environmental conditions before it's too late to help it. Unfortunately the public shows time and time again that it cannot think long term in that way.

That's why a cap and trade system could work-- it takes the advantages of the efficency of a market and applies it to environmental issues. Now the company that works to find new ways to limit pollution will also be the company that is generally more profitable.

You're also looking at how Europeans as a rule drive less than we do for numerous reasons. And not all of them will work here in the good old USA. They generally live close enough to work that they can either use a bicycle or take public transportation. We lack the same public transit systems and have farther to commute than Europe. We are an automobile society and always have been. We can offer tax breaks to consumers and companies who meet new regulations instead of punishing them for failing a regulation. A dangled carrot works better than a whip in this case. I have a proposition that I believe would be better than Cap and Trade.

1. We drill here more and build more refining capacity.
2. We build more nuclear reactors.
3. More Hydroelectric power.
4. Cleaner coal electrical generation.
5. Push towards a realistic goal by making current cars obsolete in 15 years. By building the infrastructure for hydrogen.
6. Encourage automakers to build hydrogen hybrid vehicles. So by the end of the 15 years everyone will be able to either afford or already own one.
7. Loosen EPA regulations to make it easier for companies to produce energy.

Hopefully we will be energy independent and cleaner in 15 years. While also encouraging industry instead of being punitive.

Right, private industry has always treated pollution as an externality to the detriment of the public, which is why government environmental regulations are needed. Were people this up in arms about increased costs when sulphur dioxide emissions were cut? One way or another there'll be increased costs to society through regulation, or anthropogenic global warming.

Sometimes the market doesn't work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

word.

Exactly.



After having been to Europe a few years back, one thing that struck me was the sheer VOLUME of bikes I saw on the streets. I understand that we have a longer commute, but what bugs me is that it's not even CLOSE. I see far, far more people here driving a couple blocks in their SUV, and general massive inefficient uses of energy. I simply found that it was more common over there to find someone willing to bike a couple miles to get to work.

You are correct that we are an automobile society though, but that needn't lead to those extremes.

With regard to your proposal, I think some of your ideas are ok... but in all seriousness, we have tried not being punitive and lowering regulations. Go back a few decades and that's how free market handled the situation. We wouldn't have needed to do anything if companies had been more responsible.

One could also say that, barring nuclear power, billions of research dollars have failed to produce a viable alternative to coal. Regulation isn't exactly going to create a clean power renaissance.

My only hope, well two hopes, are that any money collected actually does go to research; and that they seriously re-vamp the joke of a system that's in place for earning carbon credits. The system is very game-able.

I assume you mean the billions spent on research by the government as opposed to money spent by corporations doing similar research. Both sides sorta failed in the department of finding alternatives. I wouldn't suggest that we're going to automatically invent an alternative energy resource simply based on the fact that times will be economically tighter, but I DO think that necessity is the mother of all invention. What we're left at is this: Free market has failed in this department, government research has failed to find alternatives, but we're still left with corporate irresponsibility towards the environment. So at least doing something is better than nothing.

Carbon credits always struck me as a rather bizarre idea. The very idea of creating a currency system like that creates more problems than it solves, I think. Doesn't seem to have a lot of foresight.

oh god my cost of living is going to skyrocket

_________________

Corporate spending on energy research goes to the same pot as the government's. It's in the form of university research grants. The only divergence I'm aware of is in funding to the national labs.

The necessity isn't exactly created here. It's still cheaper to buy the credits as opposed to change infrastructure.

This bill isn't going to have any climate change impact. Hell, Greenpeace was against the bill!

India, China, Central and South America are not adhering to any type of "carbon regulations". So any remaining manufacturing jobs that we still have will be moved to those countries -- something that a struggling economy can not afford.

This is just another bureaucratic power grab to further try to tell us how to live. This cap and trade system is so ripe for graft and corruption that it isn't funny. You can easily see friends of those in power getting all the carbon credits that they need and those opposing getting strung out.

Our government should not be acting on a punitive manner on this. We should be encouraging positive behavior by rewarding it -- the Carrot on a Stick method. Don't punish people for doing what they are currently doing, but reward people for doing better.

On the European system, they are revolting against their Cap and Trade system now.

so are you mad at the bill because of this or because cost of living is going to skyrocket. you should really stick with an argument instead of just saying something stupid and then what you actually wanted to say later on.

_________________

Whatever.

lastword

_________________

hat

Foushta!

If the government over time buys back the carbon credits, the supply of allowable pollution goes down, and prices go up until changing infrastructure becomes viable.

It's how markets work, and applying it to the pollution problem is worth a shot. What we've been doing so far certainly isn't working.

The idea of pollution offsets kinda shoots that down. The supply of allowable pollution under the system is not necessarily finite. The hard number is the level at which they have to start buying credits. I'm sure there will be plenty of companies producing them.

Are you speaking purely in terms of businesses buying the credits and not having any motivation for infrastructure? My point is more or less that if prices get high enough there's a chance that *consumers* will bring about the change by not buying and finding alternatives. That's where necessity and invention comes in. Businesses buying credits won't stop that. If no one bought, they'd be forced to change infrastructure.

Venen, I think you should lead the charge and stop driving a car.

Necessity and invention already exist. That's not what is stopping the shift. It's cost and technological feasibility. If we want to regulate a change to that, government needs to help offset the costs that make it infeasible. Not institute a penalty, which basically equates to another industry tax.

It costs less money to run ten existing coal plants and pay the 'fine'. To them and to the consumer.

Solar for example would equate to essentially 'free' energy. That concept hasn't flown over power companies' heads. Big bad coal isn't holding them back. BP has a solar plant in Western Maryland. The technology just isn't working like they need it to.

We want lots of energy, and we want it cheap. If we want it clean(er) we have to make a sacrifice in one of the other two.

Well, I've rode on the bus my fair share I think as well. For the infinite amount of complaining about public transportation, I haven't found it to be all that arduous. The only problem I had with it was that lack of flexibility and having to plan ahead of time, which isn't really that big of a deal anyway - Environment for the price of convenience? I'll take it.

I've seen some worse in various cities, but I say this in Seattle. Obviously depending on job and schedule results will vary widely, but sheer lack of convenience seems to be the big kicker for most.

You realize that all public transportation is not created equally, right? And that the availability of even mediocre public transportation is actually quite limited in American cities.. right?

Without knowing the cost of the fine itself, you simply cannot make this statement with assurance.

With credits being slowly pulled from the market, making the supply of allowable pollution more scarce, the price of the credits will go up until that statement is no longer true.