No one cares about Cap and Tax? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Marvelous Marv · 06-28-2009, 09:31 PM

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?

scout · 06-29-2009, 01:43 AM

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 .....

Derwood · 06-29-2009, 07:05 AM

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

shakran · 06-29-2009, 07:16 AM

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?

dksuddeth · 06-29-2009, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

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?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

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?

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

shakran · 06-29-2009, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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

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

Quote:

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

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.

aceventura3 · 06-29-2009, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Oh, horrors. We're going to reduce the rate at which we're destroying the planet...

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.

Quote:

ScienceDaily (May 30, 2009) — A previously unknown giant volcanic eruption that led to global mass extinction 260 million years ago has been uncovered by scientists at the University of Leeds.

The eruption in the Emeishan province of south-west China unleashed around half a million cubic kilometres of lava, covering an area 5 times the size of Wales, and wiping out marine life around the world.

Unusually, scientists were able to pinpoint the exact timing of the eruption and directly link it to a mass extinction event in the study published in Science. This is because the eruptions occurred in a shallow sea – meaning that the lava appears today as a distinctive layer of igneous rock sandwiched between layers of sedimentary rock containing easily datable fossilised marine life.

The layer of fossilised rock directly after the eruption shows mass extinction of different life forms, clearly linking the onset of the eruptions with a major environmental catastrophe.

The global effect of the eruption is also due to the proximity of the volcano to a shallow sea. The collision of fast flowing lava with shallow sea water caused a violent explosion at the start of the eruptions – throwing huge quantities of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere.

"When fast flowing, low viscosity magma meets shallow sea it's like throwing water into a chip pan – there's spectacular explosion producing gigantic clouds of steam," explains Professor Paul Wignall, a palaeontologist at the University of Leeds, and the lead author of the paper.

The injection of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere would have lead to massive cloud formation spreading around the world - cooling the planet and ultimately resulting in a torrent of acid rain. Scientists estimate from the fossil record that the environmental disaster happened at the start of the eruption.

"The abrupt extinction of marine life we can clearly see in the fossil record firmly links giant volcanic eruptions with global environmental catastrophe, a correlation that has often been controversial," adds Professor Wignall.

Previous studies have linked increased carbon dioxide produced by volcanic eruptions with mass extinctions. However, because of the very long term warming effect that occurs with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (as we see with current climate change) the causal link between global environmental changes and volcanic eruptions has been hard to confirm.

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 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

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

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.

Baraka_Guru · 06-29-2009, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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?

aceventura3 · 06-29-2009, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

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.

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?

Quote:

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?

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?

Baraka_Guru · 06-29-2009, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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?

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

scout · 06-29-2009, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

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?

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...

Baraka_Guru · 06-29-2009, 09:20 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-29-2009, 09:20 AM

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.

Quote:

New Zealand may go bust over Global Warming
Author
Dennis Avery Bio
Send a friendEmail Article
broken watermains
By Dennis Avery Monday, June 1, 2009

CHURCHVILLE, VA—No country in the world would risk as much for “global warming” as New Zealand if it goes ahead with the cap-and-trade energy taxation installed by Helen Clarke’s now-departed Labour Government.

New Zealand’s economy is almost completely dependent on its farm exports: lamb, dairy products, beef and high-end white wines. Half of New Zealand’s carbon emissions come from cattle and sheep. If New Zealand taxes its cows and sheep hundreds of dollars per animal for methane emissions and manure handling fees, Argentina would almost immediately displace New Zealand’s farm exports. Argentina has more grass, more cattle, the potential for more lambs, a surging wine industry—and no Kyoto obligations.

Based on U.S. and Australian “discussions,” a 500-cow dairy might have to pay $250,000 per year for cattle emissions and manure handling permits, plus a hefty increase in its costs for low-carbon electricity and diesel. An Argentine dairy would pay none of these increased costs—and every dollar of cost differential would be a further incentive for Argentine dairymen to expand their exports at the expense of New Zealand.

That would leave Kiwi cities like Auckland and Christchurch without visible means of support.

I said this recently to several New Zealand government ministers and business leaders at a private dinner in Wellington. My message was not welcomed. John Key’s new government seems to understand that New Zealand’s economy would be at terrible risk from carbon taxes—but its voters apparently don’t realize it.

The Clark government told New Zealand voters that the cost of “leading the world” with a carbon tax would be about $150 per year. That figure is laughably low. The British government now admits its new carbon tax law could cost as much as $27,000 per UK family.

The Key government has temporarily suspended the cap-and-trade, but has not dared repeal it. Meanwhile, Australia’s Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is installing his own cap-and-trade, and playing footsie with President Obama on “solidarity” with a U.S. carbon tax. If Australia and the U.S. agreed on some benchmark carbon tax, most New Zealanders would expect their country to join in.

Never mind that the earth’s global warming stopped after 1998 because the sun has gone into a startling quiet period. That’s why New Zealand’s many glaciers have been growing recently instead of receding. Never mind that even full member compliance with Kyoto would “avoid” only about 0.05 degree C of warming over the next 50 years—by the alarmists’ own math.

The urbanites in New Zealand don’t really appreciate the sophisticated management that juggles pastures and feed crops that produce milk, cheese and Merino wool. They love the wine, but don’t understand the massive per-acre investments needed to turn their grapes into award-winning vintages.

Meanwhile, Obama’s U.S. government has just punished New Zealand with trade-distorting dairy export subsidies--because our corn ethanol program has pushed our cost of dairy feed too high. World corn prices have doubled in real terms, and may go higher as our ethanol mandates keep rising. That jacks up the U.S. cost of “alternative fuels” even further--while New Zealand will have to file a well-justified case against America under the World Trade Organization rules.

Ah, what a tangled web we’re weaving, rather than admit the Emperor of Global Warming has no clothes.

New Zealand may go bust over Global Warming

dippin · 06-29-2009, 09:42 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-29-2009, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dippin

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).

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...

shakran · 06-29-2009, 11:25 AM

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.

dksuddeth · 06-29-2009, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

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.

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.

aceventura3 · 06-29-2009, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

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.

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..

Quote:

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com

shakran · 06-29-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

any time a new regulation, rule, fee, or plan implementation gets charged to a company, that cost is passed on to the consumer, ALWAYS.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

dippin · 06-29-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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.

shakran · 06-29-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

From the opinion page of the WSJ, recently.

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

dc_dux · 06-29-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

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.

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....

shakran · 06-29-2009, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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. . .

dippin · 06-29-2009, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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

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.

aceventura3 · 06-29-2009, 04:04 PM

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.

Rekna · 06-29-2009, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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).

squeeeb · 06-29-2009, 04:44 PM

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.

filtherton · 06-29-2009, 06:22 PM

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

Rekna · 06-29-2009, 06:55 PM

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!

dippin · 06-29-2009, 07:33 PM

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.

shakran · 06-29-2009, 07:48 PM

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

dc_dux · 06-29-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

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.

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 ----------

Quote:

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.

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.....

aceventura3 · 06-30-2009, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

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.

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

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

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.

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:

Quote:

Following is the floor speech that Republican Rep. Tom McClintock of California's fourth congressional district gave last Friday in opposition to the cap and trade legislation that passed that day.

I had a strange sense of deja vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the House floor tonight, and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast.

Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill, Assembly Bill 32. And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California's recession. It uses a different mechanism than cap and trade, but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Until that bill took effect, California's unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate. But then, in January of 2007, California's unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures. Today, California's unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941.

What is it that happened in January 2007? AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California's economy. Let me give you one example from my district.

The city of Truckee, Calif., was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new, EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah. AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract. The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs.

So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill, I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district, that's not a future prediction, that is a historical fact.

Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs — exactly the same promises we're hearing from cap and trade supporters. In California, exactly the opposite has happened. We have lost so many jobs the UC Santa Barbara economic forecast is now using the D-word — depression — to discuss California's job market.

Madam Speaker, the cap and trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions. We need to understand what that means.

It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing — all of which produce enormous quantities of this innocuous and ubiquitous compound. In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day — just by breathing.

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

Rekna · 06-30-2009, 08:18 AM

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....

Cynthetiq · 06-30-2009, 09:10 AM

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.

aceventura3 · 06-30-2009, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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....

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.

Rekna · 06-30-2009, 09:43 AM

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

dippin · 06-30-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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 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.

aceventura3 · 06-30-2009, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

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

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?

Iliftrocks · 06-30-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

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.

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.

06-28-2009, 09:31 PM	#1 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	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? __________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." Margaret Thatcher

06-29-2009, 01:43 AM	#2 (permalink)
scout Psycho	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 ..... __________________ "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

06-29-2009, 09:20 AM	#12 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	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. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

06-29-2009, 04:04 PM	#25 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	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. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

06-29-2009, 04:44 PM	#27 (permalink)
squeeeb part of the problem Location: hic et ubique	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. __________________ onward to mayhem!

06-29-2009, 07:05 AM	#3 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Apparently no one in congress cares, as they all voted on it without reading it.

06-29-2009, 07:16 AM	#4 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	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?

06-29-2009, 09:42 AM	#14 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	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.

06-29-2009, 11:25 AM	#16 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	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.

06-29-2009, 06:22 PM	#28 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I heard on a talk show once that Obama was a muslim... so there's that.

06-29-2009, 06:55 PM	#29 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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!

06-29-2009, 07:33 PM	#30 (permalink)
dippin Crazy, indeed Location: the ether	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.

06-29-2009, 07:48 PM	#31 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	If we argue with the actual facts, then one side will win easily. We can't have that

06-30-2009, 08:18 AM	#34 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	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....

06-30-2009, 09:10 AM	#35 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	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 don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-30-2009, 09:43 AM	#37 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Well until you can actually show me some reputable sources that show this is in the bill i'm going to call bullshit.