^I'm pretty sure most of my points on that were in the other thread It's my belief that there's nothing wrong with a large variability of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as has been shown throughout the history of this planet. I acknowledge it is a greenhouse gas, but that its influence on the atmosphere and temperature is dwarfed by water vapor, cloud formation, etc. Also, empirically speaking for every additional molecule of CO2 released into the atmosphere, it has less of an effect than the previous one.

Given that CO2 is intertwined in our lives in almost every possible way (and that there are more serious environmental & humane issues to deal with) its pretty clear to me that this is a power play, and nothing more.

So this morning I was watching Fox & Friends (I know, I know) and they had a panel on to discuss the Climate Bill. A Libertarian, a Repub, and a Dem. After 5 minutes of talking about it Gretchen Carllson was like well I'm sorry but that's all the time we have for this due to more breaking news about Michael Jackson's death.

:carlface:

6/26/2009 8:18:09 AM

^pitiful. we sit and wonder why the majority of this nation sits around w/ uninformed opinions on stuff like this

6/26/2009 8:22:17 AM

Waxman-markey pre-liminary head-count as of Thursday afternoon (courtesy Myron Ebell):

218 needed to win…

Yes

Yes = 175
Leaning Yes = 35
TOTAL = 210

Undecided = 20

No

No = 190
Leaning No = 14
TOTAL = 204

Undecided or Won’t Say:

Kirkpatrick Az
Boyd Fla
Brown Fla
Bishop Ga
R Kirk Ill
Foster Ill
Donnelly Ind
R Jones NC
McIntyre NC
R Frelinghuysen NJ
Tonko NY
Arcuri NY
Space Ohio (he voted for it in committee)
Carney Penna.
Davis Tenn
Al Green Tex
Jackson Lee Tex
Ortiz Tex
Eddie Bernice Johnson Tex
Kind Wisc

Leaning Yes:

Mitchell Az
Cardoza Calif
Costa Calif
Baca Calif
R Castle Del
Grayson Fla
Meek Fla
Kozmas Fla
Abercrombie Hi
Bean Ill
R Cao La
Kratovil Md
R Ehlers Mich
Kildee Mich
Schauer Mich
Peters Mich
Clay Mo
Skelton Mo
Thompson Miss
Shuler NC
Adler NJ
Lance NJ
Meeks NY
McMahon NY
Murphy NY
R McHugh NY
Maffei NY
Driehaus Ohio
Fudge Ohio
Kilroy Ohio
Cooper Tenn
Edwards Tex
Rodriguez Tex
Nye Va
Kagan Wisc

Leaning No:

Salazar Colo
Marshall Ga
Boswell Iowa
Minnick Idaho
Halvorson Ill
Etheridge NC
Kissell NC
Massa NY
Kaptur Ohio
Boccieri Ohio
R Gerlach Penna
Hinojosa Tex
Mollohan WV
Rahall WV

http://greenhellblog.com/2009/06/25/waxman-markey-pre-vote-count/

Etheridge is my Representative, I hope he continues to stay on the Nay side.

6/26/2009 10:00:01 AM

McCintyre (D)- is my representative. hopefully he'll keep nay-saying instead of jumping on the party bandwagon.

Quote :

"You've made this point several times in this thread. Is it because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect? Or do you not believe that that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Or do you not believe that CO2 have risen enough over the last 150 years to have an effect? "

I think you are missing the point. Even if you do believe the oceans are flooding over and we are doomed to global warming; this does not change the fact that this bill is fucking garbage and will have very little effect on world CO2 concentrations but will smack our economy along with your avg everyday citizen in the wallet.

6/26/2009 10:19:18 AM

I think CO2 is definitely not a pollutant in the sense that it helps plants, it's natural and it's supposed to be here.
However, with almost 7 billion people and a rapidly decreasing natural environment, there are less places for the CO2 to go.

Instead of this redistribution crap (quit popping out babies and maybe the low-income households won't be so low-income...yea, I know that's racist/stereotypical/etcetc, but that's what I see every damn day at Walmart and Food Lion. /rant), why don't we do what most of you are saying?

1. research into AGW
2. research into solar/wind/water power
3. outfit businesses with renewable energy sources
4. plant more trees, hell put them on top of buildings!
5. NUCLEAR POWER

Instead, freakin retard Dem-controlled Congress sits in their seats all glib, essentially ha-ha-ing the Repubs b/c they can't stop bills. FREAKIN RETARDS!! They act like they'll be secure (probably will with lots of $$$, good ole US dollar) and that this is a wonderful and great addition to the plethora of shit that flows through the Legislature.

RAR! Writing my reps..

6/26/2009 12:52:33 PM

^I mostly agree with you. However, given the current rate of human growth/development on Earth we won't even hit 500ppmv of CO2 by the year 2100. CO2 ppmv of several thousand has occurred countless times throughout the planet's history. So I don't see the issue. (mainly b/c by the time 2100 arrives we'll have no doubt found other forms of energy production).

Quote :

"House Narrowly Advances Climate Bill to the Floor The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation to the floor, and 30 Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked. AP Friday, June 26, 2009 Democrats narrowly won a key test vote Friday on sweeping legislation to combat global warming and usher in a new era of cleaner energy. Republicans said the bill included "the largest tax increase in American history." The vote was 217-205 to advance the White House-backed legislation to the floor, and 30 Democrats defected, a reflection of the controversy the bill sparked."

What does that last bolded statement mean exactly? "advance to the floor" Also, I could have sworn they needed 218 votes for this to pass the House.

6/26/2009 1:34:23 PM

Ok, so, I haven't read too much about the cap and trade stuff, but if this is true

Quote :

"But efforts to portray the bill as an “energy tax” were blunted by a Congressional Budget Office report earlier this week that projected the annual per-household cost of the legislation would be $175 in 2020. That is far less than Republican projections of an annual cost of $3,000 per family."

Whats all the hub bub about?

6/26/2009 1:42:19 PM

PM sent, as this was addressed on page one.

6/26/2009 1:47:12 PM

That's the photo ABC News has on their website for the Climate Change Bill. I wonder if those idiots realize they're showing a photo of water vapor coming from those stacks

:carlface:

Good Lord, even Greenpeace is opposed to this bill.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-mark

[Edited on June 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM. Reason : though depending on circumstances that could add validity to the bill ]

6/26/2009 1:48:33 PM

OK, so im killing some time and kinda looking at some of this. Unlike some folks, when a historically biased source presents what looks like a typical biased piece, I hunt through it looking for things that might be a bit...strange.

So I'm digging down through the Heritage Foundation and it doesn't take me long to find something that stands out as...odd.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/CDA_08_10.pdf

CO2-EMISSION CUTS:
THE ECONOMIC COSTS OF THE EPA’ S ANPR REGULATIONS

Right up front

Quote :

"THE BASELINE Key Assumptions. The baseline for the ANPR simulations builds on the Global Insight (GI) November 2007 long-term-trend forecast. The GI model assumes that: [T]he economy suffers no major mishaps between now and 2037. It grows smoothly, in the sense that actual output follows potential output relatively closely. This projection is best described as depicting the mean of all possible paths that the economy could follow in the absence of major disruptions. Such disruptions include large oil price shocks, untoward swings in macroeconomic policy, or excessively rapid increases in demand.4 The GI long-term model forecasts the trend of the U.S. economy. “Trend” means the most likely path that the economy will follow if, for instance, it is not disturbed by a recession, extremely high oil prices, or the collapse of major trading partners. One way to think about the long-term trend is to imagine a pathway through the cyclical patterns of our economy, as well as the effects of cyclical patterns in foreign economies on the U.S. economy. Given the fiscal and economic challenges facing the United States (particularly the mounting federal deficits stemming from the long-expected crisis in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid outlays), the long term already has significant risks. The baseline assumes that the economy successfully avoids any sharp drops. At the same time, there is no inclusion of similarly large, potentially positive, shocks to the economy."

So how can we even consider the rest of the argument when the model didn't even take into account a recession or high oil prices?

Continuing

Quote :

"Petroleum. According to baseline assumptions, petroleum prices will settle around $70 a barrel in nominal terms and decline to $46 a barrel (in 2006 dollars) by 2030. Even in the absence of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) limit changes, higher prices induce consumers to move to more efficient vehicles."

In the middle of a recession we are at $70 oil right now. How can anyone take this estimate seriously?

Another

Quote :

" Nuclear Energy. The projection is for no additional nuclear power beyond the additional 15 gigawatts in the base case."

If we look here
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/com_reactors.pdf
We see there is a potential of up to 40.025 gigawatts coming online. We know all of them ton't, but we can bet that new applications will get added to the list as others fall off. So, the 15 gig seems a little low to me.

So, what about Global Insight where the HF is getting it's models.

It's owned by Joseph E. Kasputys

If we look around the web a little, we find he is most certainly a Republican and lists Nixon and Caspar Weinberger as political friends
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showPerson.php?id=6954&name=Joseph-E-Kasputys

So the source is suspect on the bias front, but we can still ignore that and look at how flawed the model seems to be with which they are making their conclusions. Until they get that worked out, there is no reason to take much stock in their numbers.

6/26/2009 2:51:29 PM

Quote :

"Instead of this redistribution crap (quit popping out babies and maybe the low-income households won't be so low-income...yea, I know that's racist/stereotypical/etcetc, but that's what I see every damn day at Walmart and Food Lion. /rant), why don't we do what most of you are saying? 1. research into AGW 2. research into solar/wind/water power 3. outfit businesses with renewable energy sources 4. plant more trees, hell put them on top of buildings! 5. NUCLEAR POWER "

agreed

6/26/2009 3:45:33 PM

Quote :

"Instead of this redistribution crap (quit popping out babies and maybe the low-income households won't be so low-income...yea, I know that's racist/stereotypical/etcetc, but that's what I see every damn day at Walmart and Food Lion. /rant), why don't we do what most of you are saying? 1. research into AGW 2. research into solar/wind/water power 3. outfit businesses with renewable energy sources 4. plant more trees, hell put them on top of buildings! 5. NUCLEAR POWER "

agreed

6/26/2009 3:45:34 PM

Quote :

"Instead of this redistribution crap (quit popping out babies and maybe the low-income households won't be so low-income...yea, I know that's racist/stereotypical/etcetc, but that's what I see every damn day at Walmart and Food Lion. /rant), why don't we do what most of you are saying? 1. research into AGW 2. research into solar/wind/water power 3. outfit businesses with renewable energy sources 4. plant more trees, hell put them on top of buildings! 5. NUCLEAR POWER "

agreed

6/26/2009 3:45:34 PM

damn triple agreement

tww ftw

6/26/2009 5:30:47 PM

The Bill passed 219-212. I pray to the Lord this won't clear the Senate. Of course, if it does, Obama can kiss his 2nd term good-bye.

6/26/2009 11:08:22 PM

^
I know.. a mixed blessing.

David Price & Brad Miller both voted for this huge gov't tax-grab. NC conservatives need to beat this over their heads from now until the election.

Apparently Price didn't remember what happened to him the last time he voted for a huge tax increase... can you say Fred Heinemann?

6/26/2009 11:22:27 PM

Quote :

"Here's the list of Democrats [44] who voted against Waxman-Markey: Jason Altmire (Pa.) Michael Arcuri (N.Y.) John Barrow (Ga.) Marion Berry (Ark.) Dan Boren (Okla.) Bobby Bright (Ala.) Christopher Carney (Pa.) Jim Costa (Calif.) Jerry Costello (Ill.) Dahlkemper (Pa.) Artur Davis (Ala.) Lincoln Davis (Tenn.) Pete DeFazio (Ore.) Joe Donnelly (Ind.) Chet Edwards (Texas) Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) Bill Foster (Ill.) Parker Griffith (Ala.) Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (S.D.) Tim Holden (Pa.) Carolyn Kirkpatrick (Ariz.) Larry Kissell (N.C.) Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) Jim Marshall (Ga.) Eric Massa (N.Y.) Jim Matheson (Utah) Charles Melancon (La.) Walter Minnick (Idaho) Harry Mitchell (Ariz.) Alan Mollohan (W.Va.) Glenn Nye (Va.) Solomon Ortiz (Texas) Earl Pomeroy (N.D.) Nick Rahall (W.Va.) Ciro Rodriguez (Tex.) Mike Ross (Ark.) John Salazar (Colo.) Pete Stark (Calif.) John Tanner (Tenn.) Gene Taylor (Miss.) Peter Visclosky (Ind.) Charlie Wilson (Ohio)"

http://www.grist.org/article/index/2009-06-26-climate-bill-senate-politics/P2

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 12:01 AM. Reason : FYI.]

6/27/2009 12:00:56 AM

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

Quote :

"NUCLEAR POWER"

6/27/2009 12:08:01 AM

Quote :

"The legislation will drive up individual and commercial consumer’s fuel prices because it inequitably distributes free emissions “allowances” to various sectors. Electricity suppliers are responsible for about 40% of the emissions covered by the bill and receive approximately 44% of the allowances – specifically to protect power consumers from price increases. However the bill holds refiners responsible for their own emissions plus the emissions from the use of petroleum products. In total refiners are responsible for 44% of all covered emissions, yet the legislation grants them only 2% of the free allowances."

http://www.api.org/Newsroom/upload/Letter_to_Congress_6_23_09.pdf

I disagree with this analysis. Economically speaking, the coal fired power plant owners face an opportunity cost in that they could sell their carbon credits, and electricity consumers will need to compensate them for that cost. As such, even slated to give every electricity producer in the country 110% of their needed carbon credits, they will still raise prices. It is just that every cent will flow to the plant owners.

So maybe that is the explanation for why: when electricity rates go up, they can credibly blame the greedy power companies just by pointing at their profit margins.

6/27/2009 12:36:41 AM

^^ If you can tell me Obama's position on nuclear power, I'd like to see it. He appears to be both for it and against it.

Quote :

"I would describe myself as agnostic on nuclear power."

--Barack Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRxl2cVFTLw

Quote :

"'Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option,' the plan said."

BUT:

Quote :

"Obama does say that nuclear fuel and waste security, waste storage, and proliferation must be taken into account 'before an expansion of nuclear power is considered.'"

--Barack Obama

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/19/fact-check-is-obama-against-nuclear-power/

6/27/2009 12:56:52 AM

Instead of destroying wealth through cap in trade schemes; i do not get why they don't just invest and fund research into more "green" technology and renewable energy.

6/27/2009 1:12:26 AM

Because they are doing what we've been clamoring about off and on for awhile, adding a tax that reflects the externalities. Granted, this rests on the assumption that C02 is wholly undesirable, but doing it this way still lets the market attempt to figure out which newer technologies are going to win rather than government picking and choosing.

Quote :

"He appears to be both for it and against it. "

There is nothing in your second statement that makes it appear he is against nuclear power. Nothing.

6/27/2009 6:49:09 AM

hahahah, you guys think THIS will decide whether Obama wins a second term? That's hilarious!

6/27/2009 8:18:29 AM

^^ Fine--"agnostic" is more than ambiguous enough.

^ I didn't indicate any such thing.

In any event--attempt at humor or not--Pelosi had the nerve to bring in an "easy button."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-passes-pelosis-signature-bill-2009-06-26.html

6/27/2009 8:30:59 AM

i think he was referring to this:

Quote :

"The Bill passed 219-212. I pray to the Lord this won't clear the Senate. Of course, if it does, Obama can kiss his 2nd term good-bye."

6/27/2009 10:44:01 AM

I have read 3 posts in this thread. Wasn't there a time when the conservative solution was to create a market for pollution credits that could be traded?

6/27/2009 10:47:54 AM

Why cap and trade is a bad idea

Quote :

"George Santayana’s famous statement, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” rings true when it comes to the effect that the proposed cap and trade legislation would have on taxes and the U.S. economy. Many economists believe the effects of such legislation could be as disastrous as tax increases implemented during the Great Depression. Among others, these tax increases included the effects of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, the Revenue Act of 1935 (a surtax on higher incomes and on corporate earnings), and the introduction of the Social Security payroll tax in 1937. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that President Obama’s proposed tax increase from the cap-and-trade system, which would require businesses to buy carbon dioxide (CO2) emission permits, would yield at least $80 billion per year, the effects of which would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices for energy, transportation, and a whole host of other products currently using fossil fuels. The CBO estimates that such a system would cost the average household at least $1600 per year. Because poorer households spend a larger share of their income on energy (approximately 20%) compared to other income groups, the burden would be greatest on low-income households. While the purpose of the cap and trade legislation to reduce global CO2 emissions may appear to be a worthy goal, the ability to achieve the objective is undermined by the fact that it would apply only to those countries who adopt it. Developing countries like China would be allowed to continue to pollute without restrictions. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, the science on how much global warming is due to human activity versus natural causes is not settled. It doesn’t make much sense to impose a given cut in CO2 emissions if we don’t have a good idea on how much it will actually reduce global warming. In addition to having drastic effects on the economy, the cap-and-trade system could significantly increase gasoline prices in the short run, perhaps as much as 60 cents per gallon. It takes time to produce new technologies that are less dependent on fossil fuels. In the meantime, because of increased costs, oil production would decline making us more, not less, dependent on foreign oil. The increased production costs due to cap and trade, causing production of fossil fuels to decline, would translate into higher gasoline, utility, and other energy costs — even more so as many of the developing economies continue to become richer and demand more fossil fuel-based energy. In a recent editorial in The Wall Street Journal, Martin Feldstein warns that the cap-and-trade system combined with other tax increases could kill the present recovery. President Obama’s budget already includes tax increases on those making over $250,000 per year to pay for health plan reform, in addition to a number of other explicit and hidden taxes. While some of the tax increases are not scheduled to take place immediately, households and businesses certainly recognize that such taxes will permanently reduce future income and they will act now by reducing expenditures accordingly. As history has shown, not only from the U.S. during the 1930s but also Japan in the late 1990s, this is not the time for tax increases, especially of the magnitude manifested by the proposed cap-and-trade system."

Michael K. Wohlgenant is William Neal Reynolds Distinguished Professor Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics at North Carolina State University.

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990618072



[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

6/27/2009 10:52:14 AM

Quote :

"I have read 3 posts in this thread. Wasn't there a time when the conservative solution was to create a market for pollution credits that could be traded?"

This isn't a partisan issue for me. I'm against any form of pollution credits involving CO2. I'd rail just as hard against this bill if it was created by a GOP member. (Didn't McCain try something a year or two back regarding energy that failed?).

Quote :

"hahahah, you guys think THIS will decide whether Obama wins a second term? That's hilarious!"

When the economy tanks further, and living expenses for everyone shoot up, yes I'd say Obama can kiss his 2nd term good-bye.

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 11:10 AM. Reason : j]

6/27/2009 11:08:37 AM

Quote :

"When the economy tanks further"

I thought we were on an up slow. Guess we will start drifting back down again.

6/27/2009 11:26:59 AM

I'm not convinced that this will harm the economy. All it seems to do, as far as I can tell, is transfer wealth from energy consumers to energy producers. Yes, there will some dead-weight loss involved in the transfer, but unemployment is not going to increase, just wages will not keep up with rising prices.

6/27/2009 11:33:31 AM

I think it's kinda funny that I called into severe question the model used by the Heritage Foundation to arrive at their economic conclusions and you guys won't even go near the argument.

Is it just easier to stick with your original assertion, now without any fact basis behind it, than to contemplate the new information?

6/27/2009 11:37:56 AM

^^^ We're not on an up slope yet (growth), but the rate of deceleration is slowing down. The end of this year or early next year is the optimistic target for when the economy will actually start to grow again.

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ^]

6/27/2009 11:53:51 AM

What are liberals jumping on this bill just because it has the words "clean energy" in it. This bill is pure bullshit. I would argue that the American Clean Energy and Securities is the democrat equivalent to the GOP sponsored "Patriot Act". Both have a snazzy title and claim to be good for the american people. In reality though both attack the liberty and personal freedoms of individuals while increasing the size of gov't. The patriot act attack ones constitutional rights, the "Clean Energy" act aka Waxman-Market, attacking an individuals wallet as well as favoring certain corporate interests that will thrive at the expense of other corporations.

Quote :

"the revenue from which shall be redistributed to low-income households""

This part still blows me away. Not that low-income households already receive SOOO many support programs funded by the federal gov't such as WIC, Food Stamps, Section 8, welfare checks, medicaid, need based grants if their children work to get to college. I am not completely heartless saying we should get rid of all the aforementioned programs; as sure there are lots of people who are victims of the circumstance and others that are trying to better their lives but need the extra push to get going.

So why are using the cap in trade money to "assist" low-income housing instead of putting the money into "green" technologies and initiatives. This bill is supposed to be about the environment not income redistribution or helping poor people. "Low-income" houeseholds beyond the programs I listed earlier are getting help already in this bill with the amendments set up to immunte them of the economic harms caused by the "Clean Energy Act".

Is it really so politically incorrect to believe some poor people are poor because they are on the low end of the Gaussian distribution of intelligence, are lazy, or just do not really care??

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 2:32 PM. Reason : L]

6/27/2009 2:04:37 PM

^

Quote :

" The CBO estimates that such a system would cost the average household at least $1600 per year. Because poorer households spend a larger share of their income on energy (approximately 20%) compared to other income groups, the burden would be greatest on low-income households. "

- NCSU professor

6/27/2009 3:20:39 PM

Unfortunatly instead of paying their "fair share" the bill explicitly provides tax credits/deductions for low income households.

6/27/2009 4:29:34 PM

Your reading comprehension is terrible...on a good day.

6/27/2009 4:55:30 PM

Quote :

"I think it's kinda funny that I called into severe question the model used by the Heritage Foundation to arrive at their economic conclusions and you guys won't even go near the argument. "

It probably has to do with the fact that as near as I can tell, your entire complaint is that their model for a long term trend doesn't model short term spikes and lows into account. Your complaint is that one particular model doesn't plan for every possible contingency. Your complaint would remain had they assumed a recession, but not a jump in oil costs. Equally, your complaint would remain if they accounted for spiking oil prices but not a recession. Given that they are trying to estimate the average costs of this program, it would seem best to use a model that models a nominal growth in the economy rather than trying to take into account all possible highs and lows that could occur.

6/27/2009 5:02:34 PM

Wow, I didn't think your reply would be that weak.

Quote :

"It probably has to do with the fact that as near as I can tell, your entire complaint is that their model for a long term trend doesn't model short term spikes and lows into account."

You also ignored the apparent failure of new nuclear power in their model. In the original post, I meant to see if they were off for natural gas as well (I suspect they would be).

Quote :

"Your complaint is that one particular model doesn't plan for every possible contingency. "

No, my plan isn't that they don't plan for every possible contingency, it's that they planned for the best case scenario for growth, oil prices, new nuke power which certainly skews carbon output dramatically.

They model 20 years from now. In the past 20 years, we've had 3 recessions. They couldn't include at least 1 mid way through their model?

I don't necessarily fault them too much on the oil price model as the report was done in late October (and they were no doubt working on it for weeks/months before that), but I do fault people that are going to blindly use those numbers when the model is based on a price of oil that we've already hit IN THE MIDDLE OF A RECESSION. Now, it definitely appears that oil is being gamed and isn't really sustainable over the near term (maybe even the medium term) at $70, but

Quote :

"Given that they are trying to estimate the average costs of this program, it would seem best to use a model that models a nominal growth in the economy rather than trying to take into account all possible highs and lows that could occur."

by the other side of that coin it's entirely likely that the "new normal" for the US economic engine will be at a much lower growth level (I've seen more than a handful of economist think 0-1% is a very real possibility for the next 5 years) than we've experienced at any time in the past 25 years, which further calls into question the model.

6/27/2009 5:41:23 PM

Quote :

"You also ignored the apparent failure of new nuclear power in their model. In the original post, I meant to see if they were off for natural gas as well (I suspect they would be). "

That's probably because in 20 or 30 years we won't see a significant increase in nuclear power without a substantial shift in politics and policy. From your own source:

Quote :

"Submitting an application does not ensure a reactor will be built (or even started). ... One of the 20, Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Watts Bar 2, has already received a construction permit. The permit was issued on 23 January 1973, several decades prior to the NRC’s streamlining of the licensing process. If the reactor goes on line, it will be the last U.S. reactor for which the construction permit and license were applied for separately. ... Many of the firms that are considering nuclear construction are bound by State requirements that they be ‘prudent investors.' Therefore, COL filings often include a goal to “keep the nuclear option open" rather than a full commitment. Quite possibly, final commitment for some projects will only be announced shortly before actual construction begins. "

The last plant to go online in the US went online in 1996 almost 15 years ago and incidentally is the sister unit to the one which TVA has a building permit for. Per the source of all perfect knowledge wikipedia, Watts Bar 2's construction was on hold from 1988 to 2007 and isn't expected to be actually complete until 2011.

I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that without a significant change in policy and politics that we will not see a significant change in the amount of power generated by nuclear facilities for the next 20 or so years.

Quote :

"No, my plan isn't that they don't plan for every possible contingency, it's that they planned for the best case scenario for growth, oil prices, new nuke power which certainly skews carbon output dramatically. They model 20 years from now. In the past 20 years, we've had 3 recessions. They couldn't include at least 1 mid way through their model?"

They didn't plan for the best case scenario, even though in the past 20 years we've also had at least 1 significant economic boom (2 if you count the housing bubble), shouldn't they have included at least 1 of those as well? In fact they specifically say:

Quote :

" The baseline assumes that the economy successfully avoids any sharp drops. At the same time, there is no inclusion of similarly large, potentially positive, shocks to the economy.""

Quote :

"by the other side of that coin it's entirely likely that the "new normal" for the US economic engine will be at a much lower growth level (I've seen more than a handful of economist think 0-1% is a very real possibility for the next 5 years) than we've experienced at any time in the past 25 years, which further calls into question the model. "

I don't see any reason to think that US growth will be significantly lower than the long term average for the next 20 years. Certainly in the short term, but again, we're talking about an overall trend, not specific short term events. Had we been talking about this in 1998 you would be complaining that they didn't base their model on a 4-5% growth rate.

I also fail to see how you think them projecting for a lower economic growth will make things better for the outlook of this legislation. Sure, a slower growth will mean that the increase in CO2 output from existing facilities will likely decline (though there will I would imagine still be growth) but it also means that new projects such as nuclear facilities will be put on hold, as well as make it less likely that the US avoids the insolvency problem of many government entitlement programs and general tax shortages. In addition, slower economic growth will mean slower wage growth, especially as health care costs rise and those are often part of your compensation package. So under a model of lower than normal economic growth, it would seem that the burden of this legislation would increase, making their current assumptions optimistic.

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 7:19 PM. Reason : dsf]

6/27/2009 7:13:39 PM

I got an idea instead of planting trees, subsidizing already known/invented green technologies or renewable energy, funding research to aid in understanding human impact in the climate due to CO2, or giving grants to universities researching greener technologies.

Instead lets invent a virtual commodity in which every corporation and consumer has to buy/trade. Further we will punish regional utilities for not using renewable energy sources even where they are not economical or feasible. By the way nuclear power a "green"/"clean" power will not be included as a way for energy utilities to reach their renewable energy quota. Create lots of paper work and inflate government bureaucracy as part of our clean air bill. Use money we make with our new regulations and virtual CO2 emission commodity to pay Shaniqua to sit at home, pump out babies, and not have to work since she does not want to take any job paying less than $9.00/hr which is all she can find being a high school drop out.

As the extra bonus though individuals who gave no thought to saving gas money or helping pollute less; instead have bought an old truck or beater 1993 Caddilac will get rewarded with a 3500-4500 voucher to purchase a new vehicle. As long as this new vehicle gets better gas mileage. Meanwhile anybody who was responsible that bought a beater 95 civic or other fuel economic car will not get such option.

[Edited on June 27, 2009 at 8:14 PM. Reason : l]

6/27/2009 8:10:57 PM

Quote :

"That's probably because in 20 or 30 years we won't see a significant increase in nuclear power without a substantial shift in politics and policy."

Or really high costs of oil, something the model isn't accounting for. Look, it's entirely possible that oil, even at $100, was being gamed just like oil at $70 in this environment appears to be gamed. This doesn't mean that over the longer term oil will be gamed higher, the gamers will make insane profits on the quick fall only to game it up again. High price oil lasting much longer than low price oil will force changes in energy use as the expectation will be the high price returns sooner rather than later.

Quote :

"I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that without a significant change in policy and politics that we will not see a significant change in the amount of power generated by nuclear facilities for the next 20 or so years."

That's great, the last one that came on line was during a period of extremely low energy costs. If only the model we were discussing was a backward looking model, you'd have an excellent point. Those policy shifts have been gaining momentum for a few years now, and oil at $4 a barrel is going to make NIMBY fade quicker than anything.

Quote :

"They didn't plan for the best case scenario, even though in the past 20 years we've also had at least 1 significant economic boom (2 if you count the housing bubble), shouldn't they have included at least 1 of those as well? In fact they specifically say:"

So, they've essentially left out all the economic activity of the past 20 years as we've either been in a period of boom or recession. So, just how did they arrive at their model?

Quote :

"I don't see any reason to think that US growth will be significantly lower than the long term average for the next 20 years."

So now you are in disagreement with the model? It's calling for a 2.5% YoY real GDP growth versus the long term (well, since 1930) average of 3.475? Furthermore, I'd like you to consider how much the US consumer contributes to GDP and the change in the personal savings rate. Have you even considered this or do you just assume since we are discussing data from a staunchly conservative website that there isn't anything in it you'd disagree with?

Quote :

"I also fail to see how you think them projecting for a lower economic growth will make things better for the outlook of this legislation."

This is simply amazing. You're now essentially saying you don't need any model or data to know how much damage the legislation will have on the economy and consumer.

Quote :

"So under a model of lower than normal economic growth, it would seem that the burden of this legislation would increase, making their current assumptions optimistic"

We don't really know that? If the burden is enough, consumers will start to seek alternatives to avoid this burden, which is exactly what the legislation is intended to do - nudge the marketplace. If we didn't think of this as a carbon cap and trade and simply thought of it as an r&d tax, would that help you to sleep at night?

6/28/2009 5:17:46 PM

Quote :

"High price oil lasting much longer than low price oil will force changes in energy use as the expectation will be the high price returns sooner rather than later. "

That may be, but most consumers feel the pinch of higher oil prices at the pump, not at home, something that nuclear power can not help us with, hence not figuring on oil spikes increasing nuclear power. Sure, in the abstract people know that our oil dependency goes beyond their cars, but when gas topped $4.00 / gallon, you didn't see people clamoring for new nuke plants, you saw them clamoring for more hybrids and a push to get diesel cars on the roads.

Quote :

" Those policy shifts have been gaining momentum for a few years now, and oil at $4 a barrel is going to make NIMBY fade quicker than anything. "

Which is why we just shut down yucca right? And see previous paragraph for why I don't think that high gas prices (which I assume is what you were talking about and didn't really mean $4 / barrel oil) won't significantly affect our nuclear policy.

Quote :

"they've essentially left out all the economic activity of the past 20 years as we've either been in a period of boom or recession. So, just how did they arrive at their model? "

You do know what a trend is right?

Quote :

"So now you are in disagreement with the model? It's calling for a 2.5% YoY real GDP growth versus the long term (well, since 1930) average of 3.475?"

You're the one talking about how they're too optimistic on their trends for the economy. And do you mind saying where you get your 3.475 figure from, most of the numbers I've seen put it at about 3.2 (such as http://www02.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=GDP+growth+US). I also note that we've been below 3 for the past few years (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2009/pdf/gdp109f.pdf) and since I don't expect that we'll be doing better than we've done recently for the short term, I find 2.5% to be pessimistic but not unrealistic. You on the other hand seem to think it's far too optimistic.

Quote :

"This is simply amazing. You're now essentially saying you don't need any model or data to know how much damage the legislation will have on the economy and consumer."

No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. But hey, thanks for playing.

Quote :

" If we didn't think of this as a carbon cap and trade and simply thought of it as an r&d tax, would that help you to sleep at night?"

No, because there are better ways to encourage this nudge without resorting to creating an artificial good to be traded and monopolized (and you better believe that large companies, the ones most in a position to change, will buy these credits up to hold on to them and sell them at inflated prices to smaller companies). We could offer tax breaks to anyone (individuals and companies) first for installing more energy efficient systems and second for reducing their energy consumption year over year.

6/28/2009 7:53:37 PM

Quote :

"we didn't think of this as a carbon cap and trade and simply thought of it as an r&d tax"

No b.c the bill explicitly says money made by the gov't will be given to "under-priviledged" which is money on top of the tax exemptions they are getting as protection against the increase in taxes/prices they will face as a result of this legislation.

Also, as 1337 b4k4 the other people benefiting from this act besides the "poor" are the huge conglomerate and/or financial giants who have the capital to stockpile or manipulate the "CO2 market" (such as GS) to profiteer on this new system.

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 9:31 PM. Reason : l]

6/28/2009 9:28:58 PM

Quote :

"That may be, but most consumers feel the pinch of higher oil prices at the pump, not at home, something that nuclear power can not help us with,"

Really? The people in the north east would like a word with you

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-06-29-home-heating_N.htm

And it isn't just about pure dollars and cents. You talked politics and policy. Folks getting creamed at the pump will suddenly become receptive to "energy independence" talk if they keep getting pinched long enough. This is borne out by the surge in nuke plant permit applications I posted before.

Quote :

"Which is why we just shut down yucca right?"

The energy secretary said "we can do better". I'm sure you'll be quick to point out they are placating voters and kicking the problem down the road, but that doesn't change the fact that the public will demand it if energy prices stay high and the politicians who represent them will be forced to change their politics.

Quote :

"You're the one talking about how they're too optimistic on their trends for the economy."

No, you're the one that is being optimistic on the economy. My beef is with a model that is severely lacking and putting in real faith in the conclusions that are drawn from that model.

Quote :

"And do you mind saying where you get your 3.475 figure from, most of the numbers I've seen put it at about 3.2 "

From the BEA.

Quote :

"and since I don't expect that we'll be doing better than we've done recently for the short term, I find 2.5% to be pessimistic but not unrealistic. You on the other hand seem to think it's far too optimistic."

In the post .com blow up riding the back of another bubble we only averaged a rather tame 2.5% growth. Going back to 1970 we've averaged 2.96 (not including the neg growth for this year). Now, staring at the worst economic blowup in 70 years and economic policies (cap & trade not withstanding) that are going to leave us saddled with a nasty amount of debt you think 2.5% is pessimistic? Before you even begin to consider what has happened to the consumers balance sheet? Get real man. Or at least do a ton more research about the "new normal" we'll be looking at for the next decade.

Quote :

"No, that isn't what I'm saying at all. But hey, thanks for playing."

You said exactly this:

Quote :

"I don't see any reason to think that US growth will be significantly lower than the long term average for the next 20 years. Certainly in the short term, but again, we're talking about an overall trend, not specific short term events."

1) If long term is going back 79 years, the growth is >3%. If one goes back 30 years its 2.86%. The model doesn't even think it will be this high. You and the model are in disagreement. It's that black and white.
2) No commentary on the US consumer, 70% of GDP and you have nothing to say about how it will effect growth in this country over the next decade?

Quote :

"We could offer tax breaks to anyone (individuals and companies) first for installing more energy efficient systems and second for reducing their energy consumption year over year."

We already do that to a large extent but that doesn't begin to explain how it is a better system. Putting a tax on something to reflect externalities and letting the market decide the best way around it IS the only way we can get ahead in the energy game. You (and as best I can tell most others here save for a couple people) have yet to address the jobs and technology that will be created with a properly implemented scheme - no different than the goodies the space program gave us. Your tax credits that have an ROI of 20+ years and a large capital invest are NEVER going to gain traction with mainstream folks until energy prices get so unsustainably high that we fall back into recession...again.

[Edited on June 28, 2009 at 11:15 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2009 10:55:43 PM

Quote :

"Really? The people in the north east would like a word with you http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-06-29-home-heating_N.htm And it isn't just about pure dollars and cents. You talked politics and policy. Folks getting creamed at the pump will suddenly become receptive to "energy independence" talk if they keep getting pinched long enough. This is borne out by the surge in nuke plant permit applications I posted before."

Yes, the people in the north east I'm very familiar with. However, those costs are not constant throughout the year, nor does everyone in the north east use oil for winter heat. Again, most consumers will feel that pinch at the pump not at home. And yes, people will be more receptive, but everyone is receptive to an idea until it comes time to build it in their own back yard, and I honestly don't think that high oil prices are going to change NIMBY mindsets that much, unless the oil exceeds its previous highs by a significant amount (recall, that it took $3 - $4 per gallon prices just to get people to stop buying SUVs).

Further, as your own article said, an application (which often times isn't even a commitment to attempt to build) doesn't mean that a plant will be built. To even get benefit from the plant, not only does the application have to be approved and the company has to commit, but even then, you still have to build the thing. Again I draw your attention to Wattsbar 1 which was approved for construction in 1979 and went online in 1996. Even accounting for faster and better build capabilities, I would expect construction of a major plant to take about least 10 years from start to finish. So even if all of your applications were approved today, it would still be half way through the model before you even began to see an upswing in nuclear power.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely wish that this country would get over its irrational fear of nuclear power and get on with it, but I just don't have faith in the long term logistics planning capabilities of either the majority of america or our politicians. If they really knew what they were doing, we would be spending money building nuke facilities now, instead of wasting time and money on feel good ineffectual legislation.

Quote :

"I'm sure you'll be quick to point out they are placating voters and kicking the problem down the road, but that doesn't change the fact that the public will demand it if energy prices stay high and the politicians who represent them will be forced to change their politics."

That worked so well for getting us out of Iraq. And you can be damn sure that if legislation like this passes, there will be plenty of lobbying to keep nuke power down so that money can continue to be made off CO2 credits. The politics will go where there is money.

Quote :

"No, you're the one that is being optimistic on the economy. My beef is with a model that is severely lacking and putting in real faith in the conclusions that are drawn from that model."

So if you don't think the model is too optimistic, then what do you find severely lacking in it? Your concerns were with their lack of accounting for high oil prices and further recessions both pessimistic outcomes. Your other concern was not accounting for gigawatts of nuke power to come online, which is a rather optimistic path to take, so it appears to me they've chosen a model that is right down the middle of the road, yet some how you find this lacking. So tell me, what exactly is lacking, and why do you think it should be accounted for and what difference you think it will make.

Quote :

"In the post .com blow up riding the back of another bubble we only averaged a rather tame 2.5% growth. Going back to 1970 we've averaged 2.96 (not including the neg growth for this year). Now, staring at the worst economic blowup in 70 years and economic policies (cap & trade not withstanding) that are going to leave us saddled with a nasty amount of debt you think 2.5% is pessimistic? Before you even begin to consider what has happened to the consumers balance sheet? Get real man. Or at least do a ton more research about the "new normal" we'll be looking at for the next decade."

Yes I do because for all the screaming about the end of the world that this recession is, life goes on, and barring any stupid moves from the government I expect us to return to a semblance of normalcy within the next few years. Not bubble growth, but certainly I think comparable to what we've done the last 10 years. I know you say riding on the back of another bubble but in terms of creating value and wealth, the housing bubble did very little to bring any real growth to the country. Even counting this recession, I think it is entirely pessimistic to think that in 20 years we won't see a period of above average growth. But as I said, I may find it pessimist, but I don't find it unrealistic.

Quote :

"1) If long term is going back 79 years, the growth is >3%. If one goes back 30 years its 2.86%. The model doesn't even think it will be this high. You and the model are in disagreement. It's that black and white. 2) No commentary on the US consumer, 70% of GDP and you have nothing to say about how it will effect growth in this country over the next decade?"

Perhaps you need to re-read what that part of the conversation was. Further, my agreement or disagreement with the model is irrelevant, you're the one who seems to think it's lacking, but it isn't because it's too optimistic even though you keep harping on the "new normal" so again, what do you find lacking, why do you think it matters and what effect do you think it will have.

Quote :

"We already do that to a large extent but that doesn't begin to explain how it is a better system. Putting a tax on something to reflect externalities and letting the market decide the best way around it IS the only way we can get ahead in the energy game. You (and as best I can tell most others here save for a couple people) have yet to address the jobs and technology that will be created with a properly implemented scheme - no different than the goodies the space program gave us. Your tax credits that have an ROI of 20+ years and a large capital invest are NEVER going to gain traction with mainstream folks until energy prices get so unsustainably high that we fall back into recession...again. "

1) I did explain how its a better system. It doesn't create an artificial good for large companies to monopolize and turn into another investment bubble.

2) Cap and Trade is not a tax to reflect externalities. If it was, there would be no credits to trade.

3) The only jobs cap a trade will create are bureaucrats, accountants looking to scam the most money out of selling these credits and CO2 credit brokers. No new opportunities will come of this, because it doesn't incentivize new technology and developments, it incentivizes gaming the system.

4) It's funny how you talk about these tax break ideas as long term unworkable solutions because it's a long ROI and a large amount of capital investment, yet you have your hopes banked on nuclear power becoming a major force in the next 20 years, and nuke power suffers the exact same problem.

It's also funny how we always hear about how businesses and rich people are always looking to dodge their taxes and paying people to find loopholes and they never pay enough, but suddenly when we talk about making it easy for them to reduce their taxes in exchange for doing something which benefits the country, suddenly, they aren't going to be interested in reducing their taxes enough to take up the offer.

6/29/2009 12:20:07 AM

Quote :

"That's the photo ABC News has on their website for the Climate Change Bill. I wonder if those idiots realize they're showing a photo of water vapor coming from those stacks"

umm.... out of the chimney? You need to learn what a cooling tower is, and why this is not one.

6/29/2009 3:00:08 AM

Most likely it's a mix of carbon dioxide and water vapor coming from those smoke stacks.

The water vapor is the visible part. You're not gonna be able to see carbon dioxide.

6/29/2009 3:41:13 AM

Quote :

"It's my belief that there's nothing wrong with a large variability of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, as has been shown throughout the history of this planet. I acknowledge it is a greenhouse gas, but that its influence on the atmosphere and temperature is dwarfed by water vapor, cloud formation, etc. Also, empirically speaking for every additional molecule of CO2 released into the atmosphere, it has less of an effect than the previous one."

Just out of curiosity, where are you getting this idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has no bearing on the greenhouse effect?

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 5:58 AM. Reason : ]

6/29/2009 5:57:54 AM

How are you getting this. . .

Quote :

"where are you getting this idea that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that has no bearing on the greenhouse effect?"

. . .from that paragraph?

6/29/2009 8:54:14 AM

Quote :

" "For some it was a very difficult vote because the entrenched agents of the status quo were out there full force, jamming the lines in their districts and here, and they withstood that," Pelosi said."

Damn those pesky voters expressing their opinions!

6/29/2009 11:06:57 AM