No one cares about Cap and Tax?
 

The House passes this bill, after adding 341 pages at 3am, and not a peep of protest from our political savants here?

A massive job killer progresses, and those who have been griping about not being able to find a job, or who don't have enough work, have no comment?

I take it our liberals think this is a wonderful bill? Or should Obama veto it, if it passes the Senate?

Look here to find out how much your family will pay if the Cap and Trade bill passes the Senate

What this amounts to is another tax on the middle class. So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than 250000 a year. Can anyone say Bush Sr .....

Apparently no one in congress cares, as they all voted on it without reading it.

Oh, horrors. We're going to reduce the rate at which we're destroying the planet at an individual cost of, pessimistically, $175 a year per house. Gods, whatever will we do?

Here's a hint: How much more did you pay per year for gas when it was $4 or $5 a gallon under Oilman Bush? Why weren't you bitching then?

$175 a year can be a huge deal for some of us.

not much more, considering I used my motorcycle for everything and everywhere I needed to go.

And so can any number of burdens on the middle class that the Republicans have been levying since 1980. What's your point?

That works great. Unless you live in a winter-prone area. And even if you do use a motorcycle, you're still dealing with a, conservatively, 400% increase in the cost of gas. If a democrat had been at the helm during this, it would be labeled a tax.

Do you think we (humans) can actually destroy the planet? According to scientific research this planet has withstood a heck of a lot of turmoil, and is still here. Plant and animal life comes and goes, but I doubt we could actually destroy the planet. And regarding plant and animal life, what has happened after major "events" (some "events" lasting millions of years) is that new forms of plant and animal life evolved. Some scientist think the earth is about 5 billion years old.

Here is a article describing a recent discovery of major volcanic activity that some attribute to mass extinction of marine life 260 million years ago.

Ancient Volcanic Eruptions Caused Global Mass Extinction

The point of all of this is that in the big scheme of things the marginal impact of this legislation is going to be virtually nil. The costs on the other hand will have a big impact on ability to compete with other nations economically.

---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:00 PM ----------

One fact many are ignoring is, for example, if it costs an oil company more money to refine oil in the US, they will import more refined oil. We will face less investment in domestic oil refineries and some closed or the production reduced. the demand will be replace with refined oil coming from places with lower costs. and the net impact on the planet will be zero. If everyone in the world is not playing by the same rules, what is the point?

This bill is not only a tax on Americans, but a job and business killer.

There aren't many competitive nations who aren't already doing far more than the U.S. when it comes to emissions reduction and increasing capacity for renewable energy. If anything, the U.S. is playing catch-up to many others, even several developing nations.

You have nothing to say about the businesses and jobs that will be created from an increasing demand for process efficiency to reduce emissions? What about renewable energy development? No jobs there?

It is hard to refute your comment here, but we can specifically look at Canada. How is Canada ahead of the US in terms of carbon emission restrictions?

I am a "free market" person. On a fundamental basis I believe jobs and industries are created when they have a true competitive advantage. When jobs or industries are subsidized, I believe the net impact is zero at best and most likely negative as capital moves from most productive uses to less productive uses. So, given my core belief I doubt anyone could persuade me to believe this bill will create jobs on a net basis.

Also, I heard the bill (I have not read the bill) does not even include any provisions for nuclear power. I wonder why?

Canada isn't doing so hot. (Pardon the pun.) Actually, I'm a big embarrassed by our government's stance on the environment in general. We have yet to seriously address such things as cap and tax or Kyoto fulfillment. Every attempt to do so ends up creating a political storm. The Conservatives are generally promising decades-long plans (i.e. not good enough), while everyone else seems to be dropping the ball. There isn't enough political pressure here at the moment, and for that we are behind as well; maybe even further behind than the U.S. in the grand scheme. I think we take for granted our low population density and huge acreages of undeveloped territory. Either way, it's no excuse.

As much as you value your free market, there is no such thing, and so free-marketers need to to their marketer best to work within the parameters laid before them. They've been doing this for decades and will continue to do so. That is the nature of the beast, and you know it. It's about knowing what market opportunities are there within the market parameters and going for it. It's called innovation and creativity. American enterprise is completely capable of making things happen.

Good question. If you want my answer, it's because nuclear projects are ruinously expensive, go on for years, and rarely even go online. There are also too many issues already of aging facilities and not knowing what to do with them. That's the problem here at least. I'd hate to see what France will be facing in the next 50 or so years.

It's looking like the cost will more likely be around 1200 dollars a year for the average household. The 175 dollar figure is for someone over 75 living on Social Security and taking public transit if they have to go any further than the corner store. I've also recently seen a study of this very same thing in Spain and it's estimated for every job it created two was lost and now Spain's unemployment rate is exceeding 18 percent. Think things are bad now just wait .... I guess we are immune from anything that drastic happening here as the Messiah is in charge and he's got everything under control and he says we need this huge tax increase to afford the big government he has mapped out for us... so don't worry just be happy the Democrats and Obama are here to save us from ourselves...

With all due respect, Spain's employment problem is far more to do about banking on cheap labour than about the cap and trade program.

I just came across this article from Canada Free Press regarding the potential impact of cap-in-trade on New Zealand. Seem they may be flirting with ruining their economy. this supports one of my points.

New Zealand may go bust over Global Warming

I really don't get this "I am for a free market" speech when used in opposition to cap and trade. If anything, cap and trade IS the free market solution to emissions: people buy and sell the right to emit a certain amount of gasses. It helps negate the negative externality associated with certain industries, so that these industries cannot free ride on their pollution anymore, the effects of which go far beyond just global warming (which at this point Im still surprised people insist doesnt exist).

As far as the state creating a market, that has been pretty much the standard for a few hundred years. Stocks, bonds, intellectual property, airwaves were all markets created by government fiat. Heck, even the market for land was created by the state. A market for gas emissions is no bigger intrusion of the state on the free market.

I agree that the costs of "pollution" should be allocated to the products that cause "pollution". If I thought the "world" could come up with a fair solution I would support it. Just because Democrats say a bill (one that many or most have not read) is fair, doesn't mean it is.

And if you want a real impact on the environment, individual behavior will lead to change. As MJ said - I am starting with the man in the mirror...:thumbsup:

I don't think some people here quite understand what "destroying the planet" means in this context. No one is claiming that the planet will disappear, or blow up, if we continue to belch toxic emissions. What we are saying is that the planet's environment could (and will if we don't stop it) change to one that is less habitable to us. While a barren Earth would continue to exist, we wouldn't be here to appreciate it - or if we were, we'd be a much reduced species from our current standard of living. So it'd be nice if people would spare us the histrionic "those whacko lefties think the planet itself will cease to exist if I drive an SUV" bullshit, because we all know such a characterization of our views is misleading and purposely pejorative.

I'd also like to see people stop characterizing everything we spend money on while Obama is in office as a tax. That, too, as we all know, is bullshit.

And I know I'm stretching here, but it'd be rather nice if people would stop acting like we think Obama is the Messiah. I didn't call bush "Shrub" when he was fucking the country 6 ways from Sunday, and would appreciate it if your side would actually argue the issues rather than parrot Rush Limbaugh.

We've lived high on the hog energy-wise for over 100 years now. It's high time we start developing and using energies that will not harm the enviornment in the way that the energies we use now do. I'd much rather see my money going to support maintaining the habitability of the planet for humans than to see it get thrown away on actual taxes that go to support war crimes and unjustified destruction of other countries.

any time a new regulation, rule, fee, or plan implementation gets charged to a company, that cost is passed on to the consumer, ALWAYS. As far as I'm concerned, if the government adds a charge to a business plan or product that gets passed on to me, thats a tax. It would be a tax whether a republican or democrat was in office.

This issue centers around the "settled" global warming debate. I think the point of a historical reference to volcanic activity is to show how this planet has experienced real climate changes not caused by man and how the planet is able to recover or heal itself.

The issue of global warming has not been settled and more and more are beginning to acknowledge that.

From the opinion page of the WSJ, recently..

Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com

That's still not a tax. And I still question why I never saw you complaining about the 400% gasoline tax that Bush presided over.

You wouldn't be correct if you thought the sky was purple, either.

by that account, every musician, tv producer,photographer or artist in general is paid royalties or other copyright related monies they are being paid with tax money, then? Because the copyright act of 1909 created all these things people didnt have to pay for before.

No one is debating that the climate has shifted before without man's intervention. That's a copout. Just because the climate shifts on its own does not mean we should feel free to accelerate it, and it does not mean that we aren't abhorrently stupid if we accelerate it to the level where human habitation of the planet is rendered more difficult if not impossible.

So we're up to. . what. . 2 out of 100 scientists who claim to be unconvinced that the planet is heating up?


A notoriously Republican newspaper renders an opinion which is friendly to Republican business interests. Wow. What a shocker.

dk...can you point me to any credible sources that measure the direct (or indirect) tax implications on consumers of the environmental regulations of the 70s....the clean water act, safe drinking water act, clean air act, solid waste disposal act, toxic substances control act....

Don't forget to cross-reference those with the reduction in spending on healthcare for diseases resulting from bad drinking water, lead and mercury-saturated air, toxic leeching from dumping grounds, etc. . .

Wow, if you do that, I bet you'll find out that Carter cut taxes, and Reagan raised them substantially. . .

So the Polish Academy of sciences, a poll in the czech republic, and Jim Inhoffe's 700 scientists have a credibility that other academy of sciences or scientists don't?

And I specially love how credentials are fabricated to generate the impression of a hotly contested debate that simply doesnt exist. Like the 700 scientists, where the word "scientist" is stretched to include virtually anyone with a college degree, and even some without one. The list is rife with TV weathermen, several people from schools of theology, creationists and the like. I think that it is beyond any doubt that the "war of credentials" when it comes to global warming has been settled. Not that it should matter anyways.

But if people are still so convinced that there no global warming, that humans have had nothing to do with it (funny how they acknowledge volcanic activity, but never mention how much CO2 is produced by those, vs human activity), and that there is a massive conspiracy to cover it up, then instead of coming up with bogus lists, letters that were rejected, and the such, why not come up with a single scientific paper that debunks global warming that was rejected for bogus reasons? That is all it takes, instead of insisting that the fact that a creationist pastor with a doctor of divinity is a scientist and that the fact that science has refused to run his letter is evidence of a consipiracy.


By the way, the point still remains that global warming, though the most extreme, is far from being the only negative result of man made pollution.

I was channel surfing news talk shows and I heard that the bill contains a provision that every home sold will require a government inspection and the home will have to have proper energy efficient windows, insulation, appliances, etc. before the transaction can be completed.

So, we end up with the government interfering with willing buyers and sellers.
We get to employ an army of inspectors.
We give window, insulation and appliance makers and sellers a windfall profit situation.
And, now this is important....

We put an unfair burden on low/middle income people.

Let's say there is a million dollar home on the market. Odds are this home has newer windows, proper insulation, and newer appliances. This home will pass easily.
Then let's say there is a older $100,000 starter home. Odds are this home may need new windows - $2,000, new insulation - $800, a new water heater - $400, new restricted flow shower heads - $50, new light bulbs - $100, and caucking - $200. And the cost of the inspection - $250. Totaling $3,800. That is 3.8% of the value of the home. That is like a regressive tax. Of course you can say that all these measure will have a payoff, but I could argue that the increase in utility costs could off-set those savings since utility companies will have increased cost, especially since there is no provision for nuclear power.

Here the Democrats go again, screwing low/middle income people in their crusade to save the planet. Perhaps all that is need is for folks like Al Gore (or Obama taking his wife to a play using Air Force one) to stop flying in private jets telling us how to live.

Do you have a link to this? I haven't seen this yet (though i'm not watching this issue extremely closely).

it didn't work in europe, australia is repealing it, why are we doing it? this is what bothers me about the government, when crap like this is put into effect even when it seems the majority of the people are against it.

I heard on a talk show once that Obama was a muslim... so there's that.

You must have heard it on Rush Limbaugh because that is the only place I can find such a claim:

Waxman Bill Forces Environmental Inspection to Sell Your Own Home


If this is the case then you are currently judging Obama based on what a caller into Rush Limbaugh's program said.... That is a great source there!

Every state in the union already have laws where a home has to be inspected before being occupied, so this notion that "cap and trade" will end up with the "government interference between buyers and sellers" is nonsense.

And I would love to know how cap and trade has "failed" in Europe. Last I checked they were going full speed ahead with their plan, and the criticism is that allowances were too high, with too many exceptions, and not the opposite.

And finally, Australia is not repealing its own cap and trade. In fact, it has not even been put into place and is set to start in 2010.

It gets really hard to discuss these controversial issues when we have to spend so much time fact checking things.

If we argue with the actual facts, then one side will win easily. We can't have that ;)

I think what the act requires is for the DOE to develop energy efficient labeling standards for residential and commercial buildings that states (and/or locals) would be encouraged to adopt into building codes.

Seems like a consumer friendly provision to me that would give potential home buyers a better idea of the energy efficiency of residential property on the market.

I dont believe there is a provision that the homeowner would be required to meet energy efficiency standards before a transaction could be completed, but rather simply disclose the energy efficiency (and receive an energy efficiency rating) of the property at the time of the potential transaction.

But I'm not surprised that Rush would twist it to make it sound more nefarious.

---------- Post added at 12:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 AM ----------

Where is the the "unfair burden" and "screwing low/middle income people" by enabling them to be more informed as to the energy efficiency of a residential property they might buy.

I sure would like to know if I'm buying an energy hog that might need new windows, new insulation, a new water heater.....

Encouraged? Or, forced with the threat of withholding federal funds?

I just illustrate the costs. It is not rocket science to know that, for example 30 year-old homes between $80 to $100 thousand will require $x,xxx in upgrades. This is a direct regressive impact on lower income/middle class people.

It is fair to say there is a payoff, but lets say in my example the homeowner saves $25/month in utility costs it would take 152 months to recoup the $3,800 cost. That is over 12 years.

My father has a 90 year-old cousin living in the Memphis area, we visited her last year. She lives in what they call a "shotgun" house, front porch, living room, bed room, kitchen, bathroom, in a straight line configuration. She has lived in the house over 40 years. If she sold the home under these new standards, the home would without doubt need new windows, insulation (even with mild winters), water heater, roof, and replacement of her window air conditioner. This woman is as active as people half her age and keeps her home and yard well maintained. I am betting the costs could make it so that it would be more cost effective for the house to be torn down. What is the consequence? Independent elderly people on low fixed incomes will be faced with limited housing choice. This is a proud woman who would never want to live in a "senior home" or live in subsidized housing.

So, what is the point of the provision if it is not going to be a requirement? Are you suggesting that they are going to go through all of that and then make it all optional?

{added}

Ignore the messenger, if you can, and look at California as pointed out in this floor speech excerpt, shown in the IBD editorial pages today:

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal...aspx?id=480896

What new housing sale requirements are you referring to? The only reference we have on this is a random unnamed caller from Rush's show....

the way I read it it's to push electricity costs up, since the goal is the force people to use less electricity. But you plug in your car....of course when people realize that plugging in your car causes MORE coal to be burned it's going to offset the wonderful pollution savings from the individual car and centralize it into the electricity generation centers.

cost savings from not paying for fuel? negated by the increases in electricity costs.

as far as the rest on the cap on emissions, I find it a bunch of bullshit before, and still do. Since Jupiter and Mars are also having climate changes....

Jupiter: Turbulent Storms May Be Sign Of Global Climate Change

Climate change hits Mars - Times Online

Or maybe some humans are there driving around on SUVs and leaving a bunch of lights on.

I am not going to read the bill. I heard reference to the home audits yesterday evening, I think it was the Bill Beck show, I was flipping between Fox, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN.

The broader issue to me is the disproportionate burden this bill will place on low and middle income people. If my heating bill doubles, I will be o.k. However, I know people who can not afford that.

Well until you can actually show me some reputable sources that show this is in the bill i'm going to call bullshit.

I fail to see how climate change in other planets invalidates man made global warming. No one has ever denied that climate change occurs without human interference. But the fact is that the same science that explains climate change in mars and jupiter through completely "natural" causes is the same that sees a huge increase in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere through our actions as speeding up global warming.

Of course what I posted was what you consider bullshit. If you did not know, I made up the numbers I used - I did not actually get real estimates. However, like I stated it is not rocket science. Member of Congress with paid full time staff people could give much more precise impact numbers.

My premise is that the bill is going to have a disproportional impact on low and middle income people. Why won't you and Democrats be honest about that? Why? Is it because I am a bullsitter? Even if I am, does that change the reality of this bill?

Did you read the articles you listed? They don't seem to imply that we are having the global warming for the same reasons, at all. The Jupiter article says certain things happening "may" be because of climate change. Plus if it's just the sun, are all the planets having the same warming? Climate change does occur without the help of people, yep, but it also happens because of what we do too.