Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
     (7293.21)
    I'd go further: cap and trade will reduce taxes for the poor and allow carbon dioxide reduction to be achieved far more cheaply than would otherwise be the case.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
     (7293.22)
    How do you figure? Won't corporations who are required to shell out extra money simply raise their prices and effectively pass the costs onto their customer? Sure Exxon will need to buy a lot of carbon rights, but that can simply hike their prices at the pump. It's not like everyone in the USA can convert to biodiesel and fill their car up at McDonalds.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
     (7293.23)
    "How do you figure? Won't corporations who are required to shell out extra money simply raise their prices and effectively pass the costs onto their customer? Sure Exxon will need to buy a lot of carbon rights, but that can simply hike their prices at the pump."

    For every buyer there's a seller and vice versa.

    Exxon buys carbon permits - the companies selling the permits increase profits, pay out more in dividends and can potentially cut prices to undercut theri competitors.

    If one of the other oil companies needs to buy fewer permits than Exxon they'll undercut Exxon on price and Exxon will need to reduce its dividends or fidn ways to cut its emissions so it needs fewer permits.

    Furthermore, pretty much everywhere cap and trade has been proposed, the revenue raised by the government is used to cut taxes on the poor or otherwise compensate them for the higher prices. So if the average increase in costs is $100 a year, people on average wages or less with be compensated by,say, $150.
  1.  (7293.24)
    Unless they get together to conspire to keep prices high by manipulating the stock market like they normally do.
    • CommentAuthorLani
    • CommentTimeNov 26th 2009
     (7293.25)
    Let me preface this by saying that I do believe anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring, and that we need to do something about it immediately.

    That said, it's less about going more green being a generally good idea, and more about what kind of a time line we're dealing with. If GW isn't occurring at all, then we have a much longer time line before dire consequences occur. If it is not occurring but we think it is, making the necessary changes could potentially wreck economies, and it would be for nothing. Now, pretending for just a moment that the majority of companies are not just greedy bastards who care more about their current profits than the environmental living conditions for future generations, that is one of the legitimate concerns regarding the research. That said, it seems like the evidence gathered so far strongly supports that it's happening, so yes, we should do something about it now, even if it hurts us economically...because being economically hurt is better than the nasty nasty deaths that would occur from people panicking, vector-borne (e.g. insect-borne) diseases spreading to areas totally unprepared to diagnose/treat them, and the environment gone generally haywire.
    • CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2009 edited
     (7293.26)
    Furthermore, pretty much everywhere cap and trade has been proposed, the revenue raised by the government is used to cut taxes on the poor or otherwise compensate them for the higher prices. So if the average increase in costs is $100 a year, people on average wages or less with be compensated by,say, $150.

    That doesn't work. The revenue raised by the government will be coming from the people. How are people going to generate $100 per person and get back $150? This is bad economics. If the money stays with the people they can pay their bills and maybe buy things. This will help get the economy back on track.

    Right now we are not in a position to do things that will hurt us economically. Cap and Trade will raise prices on energy and there's a lot of people who can't afford it. It's a bad idea. Companies do not pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes. A company's taxes and figured into the price of the product they produce.

    There is a legitimate demand for green tech from the public. Companies recognize this and are racing to produce to meet that demand. The government needs to butt out and let things take their course. We won't be able to do anything about the environment if people are more worried about eating and keeping a roof over their head.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2009 edited
     (7293.27)
    "Companies do not pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes."

    Well then let's abolish all corporate taxes and replace them with higher taxes on individuals.

    It'll make absolutely no difference, right?
    • CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2009 edited
     (7293.28)
    Well then let's abolish all corporate taxes and repalce them with higher taxes on individuals.

    It'll make absolutely no difference, right?


    Don't be silly. Switch to a national sales tax. About 22% of the price of everything you purchase is embedded tax. Have that go directly to the government. Companies will have more money to grow, expand and hire. People can start working. Prices on products stay the same they just go to a different source. So we can abolish corporate taxes and not put any extra burden on the consumer.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2009
     (7293.29)
    "Right now we are not in a position to do things that will hurt us economically. Cap and Trade will raise prices on energy and there's a lot of people who can't afford it. It's a bad idea."

    Except that cap and trade won't kick in "right now" it'll take several years to set the system up.

    Oh and the majority of economists says it'll raise costs very little if at all.

    But what do they know?
    • CommentAuthorgzapata
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2009
     (7293.30)
    @Marty Nozz- That's the flat tax right? Wouldn't that put a big burden on the lower and middle class? Would it even get enough money to keep our government running?
  2.  (7293.31)
    Companies will have more money to grow, expand and hire


    Or pass it all on to the CEOs and shareholders while they cut jobs and beg the government for a bailout.

    The "invisible hand" is attached to a greedy, untrustworthy asshole.
    • CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2009
     (7293.32)
    @gzapata: Not really a flat tax. If we went to a national sales tax we could remove the need for income tax. The current income tax system punishes success as you pay higher percentages the more money you make. This has many faults chief among them is people who don't have money don't create jobs. By having the sales tax people can take home the money they earn without having the government hanging onto a chunk of it. They can save it, invest it, pay bills or whatever. The Government does need money to operate, but there is a lot of needless spending going on, especially with this administration. The previous one spent too much too. I'm not saying a national sales tax will be a cure all, but it would be a good start.

    @William George: I know there's the popular notion the CEOs are evil greedy bastards, but those guys don't last in the long haul. Profit hording is bad business and those guys get ferreted out. That whole "too big to fail" notion and government bailouts can go suck it. That was a massive mistake, but it was one that was largely government generated. I think there's a lot of animosity towards big business and small business ends up suffering for it. Think about how small business would benefit from it.

    @Kosmopolit: That apparently don't know squat since businesses are looking at how it will be affecting them and are opposing it. University of Missouri is dead set against it.
    • CommentAuthorZJVavrek
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2009
     (7293.33)
    @Marty Nozz
    Um. You said businesses were dead set against it, and then gave the example of a ... public research institution? Okay, I won't say more on that.
    See, when you mentioned the national sales tax, I didn't realize look at your name and attach "Other side of the debate" to what I was reading, so I just sort of assumed it was a Whitechapeler chiming in with a random extremist comment. It was kind of funny. It was still kind of funny when I realized you were serious (which took until this most recent post), but what's more serious is that we're talking tax in a thread about Global Warming. The Benevolent Overlords might not like this.

    @Lani
    Thank you for explaining that. It has helped me, personally, put the issue into perspective. A large amount of my support for electric cars comes simply from reducing pollution in cities (to improve quality of life, because I hate how exhaust smells and others must too) and from the ideas of energy efficiency (which are worthwhile but not as necessary without AGW being true.) I have typically withheld my opinion on the issue of GW or AGW, simply because I'm not familiar with the data beyond An Inconvenient Truth and criticisms of An Inconvenient Truth, but I strongly support many of the same things supported by those who believe that AGW is happening.

    re: Cap'n Trade.
    I thought the whole idea was to apply market forces to the issue of reducing pollution? It's been done before, and successfully. The government grants or tax breaks to groups which are investigating or producing "clean" "green" "elf" or whatever kind of products (which I believe has been going on—didn't Tesla Motors get a grant or a low-interest loan of some kind?) has the problem that it is the government meddling in business directly and supporters of Captain Trade (such as myself) are concerned about the best solutions not being given the greatest reinforcement when it comes to aid programs.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 27th 2009 edited
     (7293.34)
    "@Kosmopolit: That apparently don't know squat since businesses are looking at how it will be affecting them and are opposing it. University of Missouri is dead set against it."

    Businesses against something that might cost them money?

    Well that proves it!

    Because as we know businesses are the sole repository of wisdom just as government is the source of all evil in the world.

    And the University of Missouri, too?

    Well that sure trumps Lord Stern, John Steiglitz and the majority of living Nobel Economics laureates.

    I love an ideology that not only tells people being corporate slaves is good for them but tells them to beg their masters to whip them harder.
    • CommentAuthorMarty Nozz
    • CommentTimeNov 28th 2009 edited
     (7293.35)
    @ZJVavrek: I was just giving two separate examples of organizations that oppose Cap and Trade being businesses (specifically I'm seeing it from Virginia Dominion Power who have been warning us that their costs are going to go up) and a University. You are right that this discussion is getting away from it's original topic, so I'll bring it back around.

    We have what we are told and we have what we see.

    We're told Cap and Trade won't cost much, but I'm seeing letters from the power company and news stories of people opposing the costs.

    We were told the Stimulus package would create jobs and save the economy, but we're at double digit percentages of unemployment that they said would not happen.

    We were told manmade Global Warning was as serious threat and we need to stop it "for the children". Take note everyone: when you see "for the children" look very closely at what is being presented. It can be a bit of a red flag. So, we have a washed up politician in a propaganda piece kicking it off. We then have separate three summits on Global Warming canceled or postponed due to blizzard. Then it snows in Peru for the first time in a hundred years. So it looks fishy.

    But do note I am all for cleaner energy resources and a cleaner environment. I don't think the government is going about achieving this in the best possible manner. I also resent the idea of Global Warming as a scare tactic which is what it's being used as, just as Global freezing and Acid Rain were. We can save the world, but we don't have to be douchey about it.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeNov 28th 2009 edited
     (7293.36)
    "We're told Cap and Trade won't cost much, but I'm seeing letters from the power company and news stories of people opposing the costs."

    PSA Sends Letter to Congress on Climate Change and Energy Trading
    EPSA Sends Letter to Congress on Climate Change and Energy Trading

    WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA) this week sent a letter to Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) supporting passage of a cap-and-trade bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) consistent with EPSA's previously released policy principles.

    Commenting on the letter EPSA President and CEO, John E. Shelk, said "EPSA is proud to have been the first national multi-fuel electricity trade association in January 2007 to support federal legislation to reduce GHG emissions and we look forward to continuing to work with Congress on this historic legislation. EPSA believes that a market-based approach to GHG regulation provides the best opportunity for innovation and lowest reasonable costs to consumers over the long-term. Inclusion of our guidelines for allocations to LDCs as well as allowances to merchant coal generators and merchant generators under long-term contracts are necessary to ensure an efficient transition to a lower-carbon economy."



    Link

    But what would they know?

    EPSA is the national trade association representing competitive power suppliers, including generators and marketers. These suppliers, who account for nearly 40 percent of the installed generating capacity in the United States, provide reliable and competitively priced electricity from environmentally responsible facilities serving global power markets. EPSA seeks to bring the benefits of competition to all power customers.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeNov 28th 2009
     (7293.37)
    we need to stop it "for the children".

    Marty, do your hands ever get itchy from handling straw men?

    Lead poisoning from all those bullet points?

    "Global freezing" . . . oh, for cripe's sake. Ya see, I remember that flap, that silly-season scare. I was a teenager. A science nerd. It was based on statistics and was good for a few magazine articles and a NOVA episode. It was never used to scare people. There was never any implication that it was our fault. There was no call to action. That flash in the pan phenom is brought up now by every convention suite libertarian who wants to look level headed and long sighted. You have no fucking shame.

    "Acid rain?" That was real, dude. The fact that regulation worked and got it under control doesn't mean we shouldn't have been concerned about it.

    Blizzards canceling conferences means the world as a whole isn't warming up? Anecdotal peanut gallery chatter. See, droughts and oceanic dead zones and melting ice sheets, that long-term frog boil stuff doesn't cancel conferences. If they did -- if cities actually shut down golf courses and put up NO SHOWERS TODAY signs in convention hotels, and pulled fish from the menu -- cripes, the whole blizzard anecdote dropping thing would look tres pathetic.
  3.  (7293.38)
    I know there's the popular notion the CEOs are evil greedy bastards, but those guys don't last in the long haul.


    Well, only one vampire's mouth can be on a neck at a time...
    • CommentAuthorgzapata
    • CommentTimeNov 28th 2009
     (7293.39)
    Well first from my understanding of the Global Freeze (as it was way before my time) the media heard about the some data of the time and hyped it up. Didn't really have many scientists on board. Also the technology of that time is nothing compared to what we have now. Climate change isn't even a discussion in the science community. Whether it is man made is also not even a discussion. They have a consensus. Does anyone ever wonder why the only people that seem to debate against it are politicians and the media?

    I also don't understand how people listen to the gas and oil companies on this matter. That's like listening to cigarette companies say their products don't cause cancer.

    Also the term now used is climate change not global warming specifically so that it may encompass ALL the changes that will be going on not just the warming aspect. The changes are even becoming easily visible by all of us. Anyone else notice the weird weather we've all been getting? Crops not doing well? Glaciers melting?

    I simply do not understand how people can not believe we can have an effect in the world
    •  
      CommentAuthorjohnjones
    • CommentTimeNov 28th 2009
     (7293.40)
    Has anyone from the left or right thought to address climate change as a national security issue? We're in two wars and spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have because nineteen guys with knives hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into buildings. How much actual, direct damage in terms of dollar amounts did 9-11 really do? Now, how much did hurricane Katrina do? I'm guessing it did more.