Page 5.

Quote :

"If it means bringing a new economy and mfg leadership back to this country in the form of new technologies and infrastructure overhaul here at home"

You really think that making manufacturing intensely more expensive is going to bring "leadership back to this country?" Fuck no! It's just gonna send all of the manufacturing that hasn't been run off by unions overseas.

7/1/2009 5:52:42 PM

yeah there .... i dont see how this is anything other than black/white issue.

i can understand partisanship on most issues but this shit is SHIT

7/1/2009 6:31:04 PM

^ well many environmentalist and liberals (non-politicians) do not like it either.

Just that in this thread the left wing democrat liberal posters just hear Democrat leader and OBama support "CLEAN AIR" act and they get all happy, excited, and start hitting the bong without really thinking about the contents of this bill or its effect on our country.

7/1/2009 7:55:46 PM

Quote :

"this bill might have huge effect if it inspires a boom in green technology that we can't foresee. someone the other day used an example of congress trying to predict mobile phone usage in debate of an early 1980s bill. apparently they estimated that 900K people would use mobile phones by 2000. it turned out 200 times that number were in use by 2000. there's just no good way to tell what effect this bill will have since we don't know what sort of innovation it (or future measures) could spark."

And I'm sure if we hired local vandals, the local glazier industry would experience a similar boom. I somehow doubt we should be doing that, however.

It's one thing to argue, as Fail Boat has, that carbon represents an uncaptured externality of the market (i.e., its emission is effectively priced to zero). I still argue that Cap 'n Trade is inefficient at meeting this goal, but it nonetheless is a sound argument.

Trying to invoke broken window economics in support of this, however, is retarded. Please stop.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 8:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2009 7:59:46 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D995U3RO0&show_article=1

7/1/2009 8:37:05 PM

another victim of global warming

7/1/2009 10:08:31 PM

Quote :

"You really think that making manufacturing intensely more expensive is going to bring "leadership back to this country?" Fuck no! It's just gonna send all of the manufacturing that hasn't been run off by unions overseas."

You have a point, for 2 decades the US consumers contribution to GDP has grown to the point that it is now 70% of GDP...while we've shipped jobs overseas. Clearly, the way out of this massive destruction of credit is to...get the consumer to go back to their old spending ways. What, with mfg capacity at home in the 65% range now, I dunno why we should even contemplating producing new...anything.

Let's be honest, we really aren't sure how this cap and trade is going to play out.

7/1/2009 11:26:48 PM

^^^^that's not my entire defense of cap and trade. it's a rebuttal to people who think they can predict a century (or even a decade) out on what cap and trade could bring.

in fact looking back at my post, i said exactly what you said i wasn't saying:

Quote :

"the point is to price in factor environmental damage into the price."

(even if i had to correct a weird wording just now.)

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 1:46 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2009 1:42:07 AM

^^while its true that nobody knows 100% for certain how cap and trade will work in our country, there is plenty of evidence it will hurt us. Look to countless European Countries, Australia, New Zealand, and even California for failure of cap and trade.

7/2/2009 8:55:18 AM

Quote :

"You have a point, for 2 decades the US consumers contribution to GDP has grown to the point that it is now 70% of GDP...while we've shipped jobs overseas. Clearly, the way out of this massive destruction of credit is to...get the consumer to go back to their old spending ways. What, with mfg capacity at home in the 65% range now, I dunno why we should even contemplating producing new...anything."

Producers have something called an inventory. As such, in order for them to produce more than they are (increase utilization from 65%) they need to sell more of that inventory. Or do you think we should start making giant war machines that we dump into the ocean?

7/2/2009 9:21:28 AM

Quote :

"Jamie Dupree Cap and Trade Extras By Jamie Dupree @ July 2, 2009 12:00 AM I know, I know. I'm probably boring you to death by going through the Cap and Trade bill with a fine tooth comb. But today, let's talk about how it would direct money to the working poor in America. On page 1193, the bill would add a section to the Social Security Act on an "Energy Refund Program." Basically, those making no more than 150% of the poverty line, would get monthly cash payments from the government to offset the extra costs that are caused by this bill. In other words, as your energy bill goes up, the feds will help offset that increase. That would mean single individuals making about $17,000 a year and families of four with $33,000 in income would be eligible for energy payments. The bill would also tinker with the Earned Income Tax Credit, by doubling the EITC for those with no dependents, and include an inflation adjustment. That's on page 1209. Then there is an interesting section right after the EITC language, Sec. 433, "Protection of Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds." From the way I read it, the administrators of Medicare and Social Security would be able to tap into general revenues of the U.S. Government, if it is determined that the Cap and Trade bill has resulted in a reduction of revenues going into those two trust funds. Let's say that again. The chieftains of Medicare and Social Security would be able to lay claim to tax dollars to offset money that did NOT come into the trust funds because of a loss of jobs attributed to the Cap and Trade bill. The goal is to "place the Trust Fund in the same position at the end of such fiscal year as the position in which it would have been if such changes had not occurred." And by the way, this is one of those 20 sections in the bill where "such sums" as necessary would be authorized. So let's just review these three items: * Payments to those making up to 150% of the poverty line to offset the costs of the Cap & Trade bill * A doubling of the EITC for low income workers with no dependents who qualify for aid * An open-ended funding of Medicare and Social Security money to deal with job losses and lower tax revenues caused by Cap & Trade "

7/2/2009 11:05:03 AM

I do not understand why people expect to pay less taxes and get so many tax breaks just by having kids. If you can not afford kids do not have them. Why do I get punished and taxed more because i don't have kids or maybe have 2 kids versus someone who pops out 8 little brats to contribute to world overpopulation and crowding.

Beyond the "replacement" rate I think its fucking absurd that taxpayers are forced to subsidize familes or welfare moms who enjoy irresponsibly having rediculously big litters.

If you want 8 kids like my g/f's aunt good for you. Don't expect the tax payer to pay for your excessive breeding or whine that you can't afford a 60" TV with all the premium channels.

7/2/2009 12:50:07 PM

Quote :

"Why do I the kids get punished and taxed more because i don't have kids or maybe have 2 kids versus someone who pops out 8 little brats to contribute to world overpopulation and crowding. their parents are irresponsible? "

7/2/2009 12:52:20 PM

^ ?

Legally the only thing parents are responsible for is providing food, shelter, clothing, and not being abusive/neglectful.

Cell phones for a 13 yr old, a car to drive, legos, college tuition, or tons of video games are not required.

The children could receive the same level of support with or without the tax credits/deductions. For all we know julie ann with her 8 kids is using the additional money received from various tax credits to buy booze, a new recliner, or to take crazy vacations after dropping the kids wth her mom.

[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 1:00 PM. Reason : a]

7/2/2009 12:58:43 PM

i'm just answering your question. the kids didn't make the choice to be had. that's the argument for giving benefits to people who have kids. i don't like it either. but that's the argument. i don't know what the right answer is. i think part of the right answer is better sex ed and access to birth control for the poor.

7/2/2009 1:05:11 PM

if they mother can't afford to raise them, give them to a relative who can or mandatory adoption.

but let's not stray from this bill, that sarijoul thoroughly approves of and told his Rep to vote for!

7/2/2009 1:48:10 PM

or you could misrepresent me.

i've said what problems i have with the bill. but i still support it over nothing. and i also think we're probably not going to get much better right now because of the farm and/or coal states' representatives.


[Edited on July 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM. Reason : and mandatory adoption? really? you think that's EVER going to happen?]

7/2/2009 1:50:35 PM

kevin drum via andrew sullivan:

Quote :

"[H]ere's what I think is the overriding reason to support W-M despite its flaws: even if it's weak, and even if the rest of the world doesn't join in immediately, it starts to align incentives in the United States in favor of inventing and deploying green technologies. (Ditto for the ETS cap-and-trade system in Europe.) And that's critically important: it's in the advanced economies of the world that new green technologies will be invented. And it's in the advanced economies of the world that existing green technologies will be proven to work on a wide scale. Once that happens — once the technologies are proven and economies of scale start to bring down their costs — the rest of the world will start to adopt them too. W-M, in its final form, may not be a strong bill, but by raising the price of carbon even a little bit, it makes the development and deployment of green tech far more likely in the United States, and therefore, far more likely on a global basis too."

7/2/2009 2:42:57 PM

oh, and it gives money to welfare moms, too. that's why I like it!

come on. we don't need this bullshit welfare legislation to spur investment in "green technologies." Those technologies will be invented either way. All this will do is line the pockets of special interests and welfare moms. Note how companies can buy offsets from Al fucking Gore in order to get around this bill. Hmmm, convenient?

7/2/2009 6:35:12 PM

Quote :

" Those technologies will be invented either way. "

Maybe true, but when?

Do you think without government investment in nuclear research, we'd have nuclear energy anywhere near as soon as we did? Or without government investment in space technology, we'd have been able to build our communications and satellite infrastructure as quickly? We probably wouldn't have GPS for "free" if it wasn't for government support of the space program.

I prefer to live in a technologically advanced world sooner, rather than later.

7/3/2009 9:40:42 PM

It reminds me of the Catholic church selling indulgences back in the day

7/4/2009 1:46:49 AM

Quote :

"I prefer to live in a technologically advanced world sooner, rather than later. "

Which is fine, however, in none of those instances has the government needed a cap and trade tax. They didn't tax telephones and radios to fund satelites, and there wasn't a compass credit that you needed in order to take advantage of magnetic navigation to encourage people to switch to GPS.

No one here is arguing that there shouldn't be a focus on different forms of energy. What they are arguing is that this whole cap and trade bullshit is one of the worst possible ways to go about doing it.

7/4/2009 12:59:34 PM

the fuel economy standards fueled investment in fuel economy technology both here and in europe. this is a similar sort of limitation. but since there is no way to determine the acceptable level of emissions from every source, this is just a market-based approach. unfortunately special interests have kinda stacked the deck in their favor to a certain extent. and there definitely were taxes to pay for all those other technologies you talk about. they just weren't specific to those technologies.

7/4/2009 1:08:20 PM

and you don't think there are special interests on the other side pushing the issue, as well? *cough*AlGore*cough*

7/4/2009 7:29:41 PM

Quote :

"Many critics have raised this objection before, but it bears repeating: We have no idea what the world economy will be like in the 22nd century. Had people in 1909 adopted analogous policies to "help" us, they might have imposed a tax on buggies or a cap on manure, needlessly raising the costs of transportation while the U.S. economy switched to motor vehicles. This is not a mere joke; "serious" people were worried about population growth, and the ability of large cities to support the growing traffic from horses. Had someone told them not to worry, because Henry Ford's new Model T would soon transform personal locomotion without any central direction from D.C., these ideas would probably have been dismissed as wishful thinking. As famed physicist Freeman Dyson has mused, future generations will likely have far cheaper means of reducing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, if the more alarming scenarios play out.18"

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Murphyclimate.html

7/6/2009 7:29:27 PM

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say there, Hunt...

7/6/2009 7:45:26 PM

Sorry, it wasn't in response to any particular post, just a general point I thought was interesting. After re-reading it, it is a little ambiguous if one hasn't read the article.

[Edited on July 6, 2009 at 8:07 PM. Reason : .]

7/6/2009 8:06:28 PM

Quote :

"Which is fine, however, in none of those instances has the government needed a cap and trade tax. They didn't tax telephones and radios to fund satelites, and there wasn't a compass credit that you needed in order to take advantage of magnetic navigation to encourage people to switch to GPS."

How do we know if they would have made those taxes more direct that the mentioned industries wouldn't have pitched in and we'd have all those technologies even sooner?

You guys bitched about the government picking winners in the ethanol sweepstakes. Now, with a system that doesn't pick, you're going to bitch about that too.

7/6/2009 8:14:43 PM

Quote :

"Those technologies will be invented either way."

-aaronburro

They will?

Check this out player. Currently, no one is paying a price for the green house gases they emit (which is supposedly a pretty bad thing). Therefore, they have no incentive to buy products/technologies that reduce their ghg emissions. Therefore, businesses have no incentive to invent in products/technologies that reduce ghg emissions.

A Cap-and-trade system fixes this problem by creating a price ghgs.

For more information on the importance of price signals and how they can be disrupted by externalities in the presence of high transaction costs, see two libertarian economists: Hayek and Coase.

[Edited on July 6, 2009 at 9:23 PM. Reason : ``]

7/6/2009 9:11:47 PM

^ your argument only works in the case that GHG are actually a problem. Something which has yet to be truly proven either way. No one is paying a price for GHG emission right now because there's no point in doing so.

And, CO2 not having a price doesn't adequately explain why there is so little investment in alternative energy. Rather, the sheer inefficiency and lack of any profitability prevent any interest in these technologies. Yes, it's a bit of the "chicken and egg" scenario, because no one wants to invest in a crude technology but the tech can't get past "crude" without investment, I recognize that. However, we accept that technology gets created either way. When oil prices surge high enough, people will again be interested in alternative energy.

And, a Cap and trade system might help alleviate the CO2 "problem," but this particular one certainly doesn't do anything.

Quote :

"You guys bitched about the government picking winners in the ethanol sweepstakes. Now, with a system that doesn't pick, you're going to bitch about that too."

Wanna think about that statement? The gov't most certainly is picking winners. It shut nuclear out completely with this bullshit bill.

7/7/2009 7:33:41 AM

Quote :

"The gov't most certainly is picking winners. It shut nuclear out completely with this bullshit bill."

Sorry, even if the last part of your statement were true, that wouldn't be picking winners. Try again.

7/7/2009 8:17:31 AM

^^ Um. I was directly responding your comment that these technologies would be developed eventually. That simply need not be the case. No matter how you feel about global warming, it is a simple fact that there will be very little incentive to invent new technologies that reduce ghg emissions if there is no cost associated with these emissions. The question of whether there "should" be a cost to emitting ghgs is a related but separate question.

Quote :

"And, CO2 not having a price doesn't adequately explain why there is so little investment in alternative energy. Rather, the sheer inefficiency and lack of any profitability prevent any interest in these technologies."

They lack profitability because there is currently no direct cost to emitting green house gases. If you start making people and businesses PAY for the ghgs they emit, you will see that cost-benefit analysis change. Think of it this way. At $3 per gallon, you might decide it is not worth it to buy a hybrid. At $6 per gallon, you might think otherwise. The incentive to build good hybrids or cars that utilize other fuel sources would also change.

Please realize that this is true even if global warming is a hoax.

[Edited on July 7, 2009 at 8:38 AM. Reason : ``]

7/7/2009 8:38:05 AM

Quote :

" your argument only works in the case that GHG are actually a problem. Something which has yet to be truly proven either way. No one is paying a price for GHG emission right now because there's no point in doing so."

That's like saying that the NINA loans weren't a problem, since no one was worried about them, because there was no "price" to pay. But, people aren't always willing to see problems in the future that don't affect them now, especially when there's quick money to be made.

7/7/2009 10:45:49 AM

Quote :

"You guys bitched about the government picking winners in the ethanol sweepstakes. Now, with a system that doesn't pick, you're going to bitch about that too."

They're still picking winners. The bill doesn't count nuclear energy as a renewable energy resource.

Quote :

"They lack profitability because there is currently no direct cost to emitting green house gases. If you start making people and businesses PAY for the ghgs they emit, you will see that cost-benefit analysis change. Think of it this way. At $3 per gallon, you might decide it is not worth it to buy a hybrid. At $6 per gallon, you might think otherwise. The incentive to build good hybrids or cars that utilize other fuel sources would also change. "

Unfortunately, this bill, as implemented doesn't make companies pay for carbon they emit, it makes them pay for carbon other companies don't emit. If the government wants to tax industrial CO2 emissions then they should do just that. All this cap and trade bullshit is just a way of making it so that politically favored entities can have another tool to squash their competition. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but I really don't see how this needlessly complex and easily manipulated and corruptible political process is at all a preferable solution to simply calling a spade a spade and taxing CO2 emissions other than because it is easily manipulated and corruptible.

7/7/2009 1:53:58 PM

Quote :

"They lack profitability because there is currently no direct cost to emitting green house gases."

False. They lack profitability because oil is dirt cheap and "always on," unlike the sun and wind.

Quote :

"If you start making people and businesses PAY for the ghgs they emit, you will see that cost-benefit analysis change."

And why should they pay for the GHG they emit? You said that whether GHG are a bad thing is a separate question. If so, then why should we pay for the emissions?

Quote :

"Please realize that this is true even if global warming is a hoax."

I can see that, but, you are arguing the same thing that I am, then. That oil is cheap compared to the other technologies that are massively inefficient

7/7/2009 6:37:34 PM

^ I think you're losing track of your arguments, friend.

First, you said these technologies would be developed w/out government intervention. Now you're saying that these technologies are incredibly unprofitable. Boy I bet businesses are climbing over themselves to invest in incredibly unprofitable technologies.

Look, its pretty cheap to fuel our society on oil. However, it won't be so cheap once we are start essentially charging people for the emissions that result from using oil.

Now, "should" we actually set a price for ghg emissions? That depends first on whether you think global warming is real. You don't think it is, so you don't think we should. But, hey, we are not talking about (again). We are talking about your specific, original claim that carbon saving technologies would be developed in the absence of government interviention. There is simply no reason to believe that would be the case, given the arguments I have layed out.

The good news is that you now apparently agree with me. Without a price set on ghgs, fossil fuels are dirt cheap. So pour money into inventing new fuel sources that are unlikely to be near as cheap??? Glad we got this cleared up.

7/7/2009 8:53:21 PM

Quote :

"First, you said these technologies would be developed w/out government intervention. Now you're saying that these technologies are incredibly unprofitable. Boy I bet businesses are climbing over themselves to invest in incredibly unprofitable technologies."

come on.

Quote :

"We are talking about your specific, original claim that carbon saving technologies would be developed in the absence of government interviention. There is simply no reason to believe that would be the case, given the arguments I have layed out."

False. When oil prices get high enough, people will care. Or, when the technology becomes efficient enough to compete with oil, people will care. Absent any reason to care about carbon, though, yes, people won't give a shit about carbon.

7/7/2009 9:22:58 PM

Lets get away from the global warming debate for a minute (even though it was the impetus for this bill).

This quote is telling:

Quote :

"When oil prices surge high enough, people will again be interested in alternative energy."

I'd rather not wait around for the next oil spike, which is likely to be much worse than the last. It's probably about time to seriously invest in alternatives and begin the transition over to renewable energy sources, rather than procrastinate and wait for a prolonged spike in oil prices that forces us to scramble into an incredibly painful withdrawal. Face it, fossil fuels are dirty, prone to wild price fluctuations, limited in supply and largely controlled by the worlds despots. I, for one, don't like being at the mercy of the fucking Saudis.

Time to reflect the externalities of fossil fuels by taxing them in line with the resulting security and environmental costs. Let the market decide the alternatives, since they will become more viable as the price of oil increases. Cap and trade isn't as good, but it's a better solution than sitting around with our thumbs up our asses.


[Edited on July 8, 2009 at 1:07 AM. Reason : 2]

7/8/2009 12:59:45 AM

Quote :

"Cap and trade isn't as good, but it's a better solution than sitting around with our thumbs up our asses. "

Perhaps sitting around isn't constructive, but neither is rushing into something for the sake of doing something. Megan McArdle phrased this pretty well...

Quote :

"There's something else that has been bothering me. I have been urged to support Waxman-Markey on the grounds that we musn't make the perfect the enemy of the good, and maybe I do. But the mediocre can also be the enemy of the good. Even if you support national healtch care, you certainly wouldn't build Medicare in its current form. But there is path dependance in institutions: once they exist, they're precious hard to change. Enacting a crappy climate trading system in order to do something forestalls the possibility of enacting a better design five or ten years from now. Given that this bill is universally expected to accomplish virtually no significant emissions reduction in the foreseeable future, that should worry people. Other than me, I mean."

http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/political_constraints_on_progr.php

7/8/2009 7:26:02 AM

Just so everyone knows, the impact of capping ghg emissions at X amount is exactly the same as taxing ghg emissions to reduce ghg emissions to X amount. The only difference is that the government does not typically capture as much revenue under cap and trade because some permits are given away and not auctioned off. If all permits are auctioned off, they are exactly the same.

Personally, I prefer cap and trade because it is 1) more politically feasible (why lament what you can't have) and 2) it gives you more certainty about what ghg emissions will be in the future (its hard to figure out what tax you need to reduce ghg emissions to X level and could change with time).

[Edited on July 8, 2009 at 7:56 AM. Reason : ``]

7/8/2009 7:43:02 AM

Quote :

"I, for one, don't like being at the mercy of the fucking Saudis. "

So why not drill here?

Quote :

"Time to reflect the externalities of fossil fuels by taxing them in line with the resulting security and environmental costs."

And what would the environmental cost of FF be?

7/8/2009 7:53:49 AM

^ Haha personally, I don't think aaronburro gives a fuck about this issue. He just like pissing "liberal hippies" off.

At least, I hope that's it. I can understand trolling more than I can understand a willful disrespect for the environmental resources that sustain our existence and an arrogant dismissal of the scientific community that studies our impact on them.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that aaronburro will drop the act.

7/8/2009 8:09:32 AM

Quote :

"Pickens Calls Off Massive Wind Farm in Texas HOUSTON – Plans for the world's largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he's looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines. Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall — taller than most 30-story buildings. In Texas, the problem lies in getting power from the proposed site in the Panhandle to a distribution system, Pickens said in an interview with The Associated Press in New York. He'd hoped to build his own transmission lines but he said there were technical problems. "It doesn't mean that wind is dead," said Pickens, who runs the Dallas-based energy investment fund BP Capital. "It just means we got a little bit too quick off the blocks.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_bi_ge/us_pickens_wind_energy

7/8/2009 10:21:11 AM

Quote :

"Lets get away from the global warming debate for a minute (even though it was the impetus for this bill). This quote is telling: Quote : "When oil prices surge high enough, people will again be interested in alternative energy." I'd rather not wait around for the next oil spike, which is likely to be much worse than the last. It's probably about time to seriously invest in alternatives and begin the transition over to renewable energy sources, rather than procrastinate and wait for a prolonged spike in oil prices that forces us to scramble into an incredibly painful withdrawal. Face it, fossil fuels are dirty, prone to wild price fluctuations, limited in supply and largely controlled by the worlds despots. I, for one, don't like being at the mercy of the fucking Saudis. Time to reflect the externalities of fossil fuels by taxing them in line with the resulting security and environmental costs. Let the market decide the alternatives, since they will become more viable as the price of oil increases. Cap and trade isn't as good, but it's a better solution than sitting around with our thumbs up our asses. "

If that's the case then the government should just tax carbon directly, and take that revenue and use it for research for alternative fuels. And the bill should also help our nuclear power industry flourish. And it does none of this.

It's a fucking joke.

7/13/2009 1:06:40 PM

exactly. if you want to get rid forms of power that release carbon, then tax releasing carbon. Increase the tax over the next 10-20 years. You'll get technologies that capture the carbon instead of releasing it plus you'll make alternative energy more competitive without singling out individual technologies.

7/13/2009 1:18:39 PM

the first half of this video handles the Waxman-Markey debate pretty well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Psfn6iOfS8

7/13/2009 2:45:02 PM

Quote :

"Just so everyone knows, the impact of capping ghg emissions at X amount is exactly the same as taxing ghg emissions to reduce ghg emissions to X amount. The only difference is that the government does not typically capture as much revenue under cap and trade because some permits are given away and not auctioned off. If all permits are auctioned off, they are exactly the same."

No, it's not. Not even under the perfect conditions you describe, assuming nothing untoward. Here is why:

1) We assume no exploitation of regulatory arbitrage, something we all know to be patently untrue. Larger firms with greater leveraging power can buy up larger blocks of permits at auction and then re-sell them, much like a scalper, for a profit. Or they are simply allocated them, for "free," by virtue of their political connections.

2) The marginal incentive structure for reducing emissions is entirely different, particularly when permits are freely given, rather than completely auctioned. Incentive to reduce CO2 only exists when the permit cost begins to outweigh the cost of remediation. But furthermore, if the permit cost is zero, this is essentially a license to emit until one reaches one's quota. Furthermore, with too many permits - as has been the case in Europe, and will inevitably be the pressure here, the floor drops out from the price, essentially rendering it useless.

A carbon tax is fixed and transparent. It sets a fixed price for every firm and keeps the incentive structure level - the cost to emit begins at the the first CO2 emitted and scales accordingly. Which means the incentives do so too in predictable fashion. This is entirely different than Cap 'n Trade.

Quote :

"Personally, I prefer cap and trade because it is 1) more politically feasible (why lament what you can't have) and 2) it gives you more certainty about what ghg emissions will be in the future (its hard to figure out what tax you need to reduce ghg emissions to X level and could change with time)."

Cap 'n Trade is only politically tenable by virtue of massive corporate giveaways (now see how the farmers want credits for doing something they already do - and they want retroactive payments at that!). The "certainty" about GHG assumes policy stability - which again, we all know to be a horribly naive assumption.

In other words, the political "viability" of Cap 'n Trade is built on smoke and mirrors - hide costs from people, buy off powerful interests, and pray that future politicians have the wherewithal to actually enforce the painful future ratchet-down. It's entirely dishonest. If you have to go to these kinds of great lengths to sell a flawed policy, then maybe it's a little too soon to write off a carbon tax, which at the very least is simple, transparent, direct, and most of all, honest.

7/13/2009 11:24:12 PM

Quote :

"Check this out player. Currently, no one is paying a price for the green house gases they emit (which is supposedly a pretty bad thing). Therefore, they have no incentive to buy products/technologies that reduce their ghg emissions. Therefore, businesses have no incentive to invent in products/technologies that reduce ghg emissions. A Cap-and-trade system fixes this problem by creating a price ghgs. For more information on the importance of price signals and how they can be disrupted by externalities in the presence of high transaction costs, see two libertarian economists: Hayek and Coase."

We actually do pay a price for the greenhouse gas we emit -- fuels are already taxed.
The factory I work for uses carbon for the hardening of steels, our electricty (the heat) is taxed, the propane (to provide the carbon) is taxed, we are taxed for our "industrial" zoning, etc....

There is no need for an additional level of complication.

7/16/2009 9:07:27 PM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — Today, in anticipation of Friday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee vote on the Waxman-Markey legislation, the National Black Chamber of Commerce (NBCC) released a new study that determines the potential economic impacts of the federal cap-and-trade system outlined in the bill. Compiled by CRA International, the analysis determines that by 2030 the law would: · reduce national GDP roughly $350 billon below the baseline level; · cut net employment by 2.5 million jobs per year (even after accounting for new “green” jobs); and · reduce earnings for the average U.S. worker by $390 per year. NBCC President and CEO Harry Alford notes, “These findings add to a growing body of evidence that demonstrates cap-and-trade would make American consumers poorer and the products they buy more expensive. "

Watch Harry Alford tear into Boxer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BObrKi4fUBw

7/16/2009 9:26:34 PM

He called her Mam to.

7/17/2009 9:09:40 PM