Quote :

"However, those costs are not constant throughout the year, nor does everyone in the north east use oil for winter heat."

Yeah, you have a point. So long as they are only being raped for 1/3rd of the year, I guess it isn't so bad, right?

Quote :

"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"

We'll just have to wait and see what happens.

Quote :

"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."

No shit, I got it the first time you said it. I guess it really doesn't matter at all about where the market might be heading that there has been a rise in permit applications. Doesn't matter at all.

Quote :

"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"

And? Should that not be considered in the model?

Quote :

"but I just don't have faith in the long term logistics planning capabilities of either the majority of america or our politicians."

I think the binge and purge of the past 2 bubbles will go a long way to getting Americans to start thinking about saving again. In fact, it already has as evidenced by the personal savings rate, something you're avoiding addressing in a debate about GDP forecasting where the US consumer accounts for 70% of it.

Quote :

"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."

Wait, what? First, corporations aren't going to be for this legislation because it will tax them, but now they are actually going to lobby against nuke because there is money to be made off of the credits? Fail.

Quote :

"So if you don't think the model is too optimistic, then what do you find severely lacking in it?"

Are you obtuse? It is calling for oil to settle long term at $70 a barrel. THE PRICE OF OIL IS AT $70 A BARREL RIGHT NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WORST RECESSION IN 70 YEARS. What happens to the price of oil when this inevitable return to normal you are describing happens?

Quote :

"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."

The middle of what road? Between high and higher oil prices? No. Between average and higher GDP growth? No. Neither will happen when considering the change in attitude of the consumer regarding savings. Neither of will happen if all national health care gets rammed through and interest payments on all the borrowing we're doing to flood the economy with stimulus and to back stop failed banks.

Quote :

"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."

All of the above. Lets see 3 cases, best, typical, worst. So we at least have an idea, not the best case scenario that attempts to make the legislation look as bad as possible.

Quote :

"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."

Rofl. Now you've really lost it. How can the government NOT make stupid moves when every move made by the government in your opinion IS a stupid move. Government itself is a stupid move. Did you really just post that?

Quote :

"Not bubble growth, but certainly I think comparable to what we've done the last 10 years."

You mean, recession and then bubble growth? Or are you just talking about an average...in which case we're going to need another bubble after this recession to make your average look "comparable to the past 10 years".

Quote :

"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."

Let me introduce you to my Japanese friend. You're down with anime so you should be all about that.

Quote :

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

This makes no sense. It is absolutely a tax on corporations that will force them to seek energy alternatives that minimize their carbon output.

Quote :

"because it doesn't incentivize new technology and developments, it incentivizes gaming the system."

Please I'd love to see you elaborate on this because right now this (and the statement right before it) is nothing more than anti-government ideology resting on no sound basis. None. High energy costs already did shift consumers from SUVs and caused an investment boom in alternative energies. A tax has the effect of making energy more expensive. You should be able to follow this logically.

Quote :

"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."

My hopes are 'banked' on nuclear power? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! It was one bullet of a few about the short comings of a conservative organizations model for the future economy.

Quote :

"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,"

I did some napkin calculations of a solar installation and the ROI is ~15 years before I consider the opp cost of the high capital invest (~15-20 grand after tax rebates). Thats before considering I am on gas heat and would need additional equipment to heat in the winter.

Most small business and individuals simply can't afford an upfront cost like that and even if they could aren't willing to wait that long for ROI.

Quote :

"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."

Of course they aren't going to try and reduce their taxes if it means an overall negative hit to the bottom line. Stop grasping at straws, you're wasting everyones time.

6/29/2009 11:13:04 AM

Quote :

"there will be plenty of lobbying to keep nuke power down so that money can continue to be made off CO2 credits"

I might pull the GOP lever just in hopes taht they would repeal this horseshit in two years.

Quote :

"First, corporations aren't going to be for this legislation because it will tax them, but now they are actually going to lobby against nuke because there is money to be made off of the credits"

For the financial giants and conglamorates who profit off of carbon credits; they would be hardcore against nuclear power since it takes
out of their bottom line. I do not understand why nothing to propragate nuclear power is in this. Rather people like it or not
harnassing the power of the atom is the future if we as a society want to continue advancing as a civilization.

Quote :

"WORST RECESSION IN 70 YEARS."

thats kind of subjective.

Quote :

"Please I'd love to see you elaborate on this because right now this (and the statement right before it) is nothing more than anti-government ideology resting on no sound basis. None. High energy costs already did shift consumers from SUVs and caused an investment boom in alternative energies. A tax has the effect of making energy more expensive. You should be able to follow this logically. "

Except for the fact that some place like SoCal can have a carbon footprint magnitudes higher than say Boston. Even though SoCal
they produce XYZ megawatts and 80% of their grid is supplied by dirty coal but since they have 20% of their power from solar panels they recieve no surcharge.
In Boston hypotheticly their energy utility could have an almost nil carbon footprint since they get their electricity from Nuclear. Guess which region though
gets penalized by the "Clean Air Act" though for not using "renewable" energy.

6/29/2009 11:47:59 AM

Quote :

"thats kind of subjective."

rofl. Pick a metric and we'll talk about it.

Quote :

"In Boston hypotheticly their energy utility could have an almost nil carbon footprint since they get their electricity from Nuclear. Guess which region though gets penalized by the "Clean Air Act" though for not using "renewable" energy."

Can you provide something that supports this? I'm not a full fledged Clean Air Act expert, but on the face of it, I don't see why Boston would get penalized for not using coal.

6/29/2009 12:07:05 PM

You've got to love the mainstream media's subjectivity on this

Quote :

"New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman has charged that Congressmen who do not subscribe to his view of a man-made global warming "crisis" are guilty of "treason against the planet." Krugman also rebuked the "irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial." The House of Representatives narrowly passed the climate bill last week. "As I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet," Krugman wrote in the New York Times on June 28, 2009. "We're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?" Krugman explained. "Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it's in their political interest to pretend that there's nothing to worry about. If that's not betrayal, I don't know what is," Krugman wrote. "

what a crock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1246280601-fCVbfCgdQFOlqtMP1MRaGQ

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 2:19 PM. Reason : link ]

6/29/2009 2:17:38 PM

You do know what

Quote :

"Op-Ed Columnist"

means, don't you?

6/29/2009 2:37:24 PM

Quote :

"I don't see why Boston would get penalized for not using coal. "

Since they do not have 20% renewable energy in my hypothetical example; duh! Nuclear energy would not count for their quota. Even though Boston is a densly populated, land scare, geo-thermal lacking, solar deficient area.

Quote :

"As I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet"

this is such bullshit and has nothing to do with believing or not believing in global warming.this issue is the amount of bullshit loaded into a so called "Clean Air Act."
Statements like this are no different from when the GOP accused anyone not going along with the
invasion of Iraq or supporting the Patriot Act as being "unamerican", "hating the troops", or "terrorist sympathizers."
While this could be true; merely opposing Bush's war for oil or Fascist Patriot acts for being political garbage does not make
a congressman or journalist any of the above mentioned labels.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM. Reason : aa]

6/29/2009 3:21:00 PM

Can you show me which part of the legislation this is stipulated? Or which column you read that stated it as so?

6/29/2009 3:23:07 PM

^^^I do, and they let that nut verbally attack people in his op-ed's about once a week.

6/29/2009 3:24:35 PM

Yeah, that nobel prize winning nut Krugman. What the hell is the NYT doing letting him write op-eds for them?

6/29/2009 3:34:38 PM

Hey HUR, this is a quote from part of the bill (Section 432, Energy Refund Program For Low Income Consumers). I figured you would love it

Quote :

""(1) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, or the agency designated by the Administrator shall formulate and administer the 'Energy Refund Program'. (2) At the request of the State agency, eligible low-income households within the State shall receive a monthly cash energy refund equal to the estimated loss in purchasing power resulting from this Act." ... Participation in the Energy Refund Program shall be limited to a household that (B) has gross income that does not exceed 150 percent of the poverty line. ... (c) Monthly Energy Refund Amount -- "(1) Subject to standards and an implementation schedule set by the Administrator, the energy refund shall be provided in monthly installments via -- (A) direct deposit into the eligible household's designated bank account." "

Hopefully this will never see the light of day.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 4:45 PM. Reason : as long as we apease the serfs...]

6/29/2009 4:44:43 PM

My congressman, for Wilmington NC (whatever region that is), Mike McIntyre -D
responded to an e-mail i sent regarding my dissent of the Clean Energy Act aka Waxman-Markey Cap & Trade with the following.....

Quote :

"Thank you for writing to me about H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and I share your concerns. As you know, H.R. 2454 would establish a program to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in our atmosphere through a cap-and-trade program. This program would require entities that emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to either reduce their emissions or purchase allowances from entities that remove carbon from the atmosphere. Electric utilities, manufacturing facilities, and industrial operations will be required to meet these requirements which could significantly drive up the cost of doing business. Those cost increase would then be passed along to consumers causing increases in utilities rates, the cost of food and household items, and vehicle fuels. When the program is fully implemented in 2030, retail electricity rates could rise as much as 45%, our GDP could fall as much as $350 billion, and the economy could lose as many as 2.5 million jobs even after accounting for those generated by new, green business. This is a price American families simply cannot afford to pay. In addition, the bill would establish a Renewable Electricity Standard (RES), which requires electric utilities to generate a specific amount of energy from renewable sources. The RES does not take into account regional differences in capacity for renewable generation. The southeastern region of the United States does not have the same renewable generation capacity as states out West blessed with ample sunlight to warm solar panels and constant wind to drive turbines. I am concerned that the costs associated with both cap-and-trade and the RES will be merely a tax on consumers without the benefits of reduced emissions or more renewable generation. God's beautiful earth must be protected and preserved, but this bill is not the answer. It will cost jobs, increase electricity rates, pass on financial burdens to the next generation, and hurt our country in the global economy. It would potentially allow more jobs to go overseas to countries like China that do not comply with the same standards. My commitment in Congress has been to help working families and keep Southeastern North Carolina moving forward. During these challenging economic times, this bill is a hardship that our citizens and communities cannot afford. I voted against this bill as it places far too great a burden on our working families, small businesses, and family farmers. "

I am sure its a generic message for all people e-mailing regarding the bill but i can respect this response. Glad my representative is not a monkey for party politics.

Quote :

"direct deposit into the eligible household's designated bank account." ""

LOL Don't worry Pat most poor people do not have bank accounts. I don't feel as worried now. At least they are not making checks deliverable for "poor" households at Walmart or the PayDay Loan outlets. If this were the case I really would be pissed.


[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 5:52 PM. Reason : l]

6/29/2009 5:48:38 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, that nobel prize winning nut Krugman. What the hell is the NYT doing letting him write op-eds for them?"

Look, you and I both know that Krugman's Nobel came for when he was doing real economics back in academia, not from acting like some screeching partisan who has not even the faintest comprenension of "argumentum ad hominem." And the real economics work he was doing was pretty highly technical at that - his policy recomendations are generally speaking retarded. Citing his Nobel then as some kind of sign of his credibility then is laughable.

Or unless we now also read from the Book of Friedman, and have dueling Nobel Laureate Extraviganzaaaaarrrgh(!)

Also, with regard to this point:

Quote :

"This makes no sense. It is absolutely a tax on corporations that will force them to seek energy alternatives that minimize their carbon output."

No, a carbon tax is a tax which forces them to seek energy alternatives to minimize carbon input. Cap 'n Trade creates an artificial commodity out of an externality, gives away 85% of those credits in the short term, then pretends we've somehow produced a price nudge. Meanwhile, who gets the initial allocation? Why, those people with the most clout in Washington. How convenient.

In other words, it's a recipe for fail. If lawmakers had any honesty about wanting to do something about CO2 emissions - and in the way that you propose - they'd propose a carbon tax. They won't because of the fact that unlike Cap 'n Trade, it's quite transparent, and much harder to game for favored interests.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 6:08 PM. Reason : Zombie Milton Friedman abides.]

6/29/2009 6:01:15 PM

^ only answer Thunderdome.. two men enter.. one man leaves.

6/29/2009 6:08:49 PM

Ive realized when it comes down to it after hearing about this Clean Air Act, the Universal Health CAre bill, and the bail out that there really is not middle moderate ground with our two party system.

The extremes of both parties scream the loudest and end up getting their way after marginalizing the middle. Moderate republicans and centrist democrats face the uphill battle of sharing common ground across partylines and the agendas of 3rd parties like the libertarians. In the end you get fem-liberal cunts like Pelosi leading on the left and neo-con fascist hard asses like Cheney mandating from the right.

6/29/2009 6:32:15 PM

Here is David Price's response to me....

Quote :

" On June 26, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, with my support. As you know, this legislation would establish a market-based incentive system to reduce carbon emissions. The bill would enable the U.S. to achieve the 80 percent reduction that scientists say we must reach by mid-century to avoid a dangerous climate tipping point. I believe we need to open the door to a clean energy economy by providing incentives for the production of energy that is clean, domestically-produced and affordable. Our nation must be a leader in finding clean energy solutions that reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign oil, create a new generation of jobs, and provide climate and energy security for us and the generations to come. H.R. 2454 would do that by investing in energy efficiency and renewable energy, carbon capture and sequestration, electric and other advanced technology vehicles, and basic scientific research and development. We certainly must take into account the impact of emission reduction initiatives as proposed by H.R. 2454 on individual taxpayers and the U.S. economy overall, and I am pleased that significant changes were made to address concerns raised by rural electric providers, agricultural producers, and others. I would note, however, that the cost estimates offered by opponents of change are wildly exaggerated. According to the Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency, the reductions in carbon pollution required by the legislation would cost American families less than a postage stamp per day. Moreover, investments in clean energy offer us an important opportunity to spur economic growth and create entirely new industries, with millions of new American-based jobs. Every indication is that the Research Triangle area of North Carolina is poised to be a major winner in this new economy. I supported H.R. 2454 to get America running on clean energy, increase efficiency, improve air quality, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. You can rest assured that I will continue working for a clean energy economy, and I hope you will stay in touch regarding your perspective. Again, thank you for contacting me. "

6/29/2009 10:14:30 PM

fail

6/29/2009 10:18:39 PM

^^ Epic Fail

David Price is a douche bag and a faggot. Glad my congressman does not have his head stuck up in some cloud of idealist liberal la la land.

[Edited on June 29, 2009 at 10:42 PM. Reason : l]

6/29/2009 10:41:36 PM

how profound

6/29/2009 10:44:03 PM

David Price is a joke.

6/29/2009 10:50:06 PM

^^^,^^^^ i was under the impression that a bill that you support passing through your house of congress is not a "fail"

6/30/2009 8:47:31 AM

is that sarcasm?

6/30/2009 8:49:32 AM

oh no i get it. he fails because you disagree with him. but in reality, the legislation that he supports passed through the house.

6/30/2009 8:53:13 AM

lol

gotcha

6/30/2009 12:23:15 PM

basically getting any bill passed is a win

6/30/2009 12:48:27 PM

Quote :

"CBO Ignores Economic Impact of Democrats’ Climate Bill Monday, June 29, 2009 By Matt Cover (CNSNews.com) – The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) did not calculate the economic costs of House Democrats’ massive cap and trade legislation, only accounting for how the government plans to collect and redistribute revenues from selling carbon emissions permits. The analysis, which was released June 19, shows that if Democrats’ carbon reduction schemes turn out exactly as planned, government will be able to largely mitigate the per-household financial impact of a cap and trade system by redistributing the revenues collected from businesses across the population, resulting in a net per-household cost of about $165 per year. However, the CBO report does not examine the economic impact of imposing billions in new operating and production costs on virtually every industry in America. It only assumes that the price businesses pay for the allowances will be directly passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. CBO does not examine the cost from lost production and energy use to the economy, including higher unemployment and reductions in wages and benefits that would come as businesses are forced to cut back on production due to federally mandated reductions in energy usage. “The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap,” the report said in a footnote. “The reduction in GDP would also include indirect general equilibrium effects, such as changes in the labor supply resulting from reductions in real wages and potential reductions in the productivity of capital and labor.”... ...Kreutzer said that the so-called “climate” legislation was no such thing, saying that it would severely damage the economy while delivering negligible climate benefits. “The bill is masquerading as a climate bill. It can’t be a climate bill, because there is almost universal agreement that it will have negligible impact on world temperatures by itself. We’re getting almost no benefit, I mean, it’s attractive to people who want government to have more money, but you’re getting no benefit for the environment.”"

You don't say...

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50230

6/30/2009 12:53:25 PM

Epic Fail for David Price touting the party line and supporting the ridiculous Climate Bill instead of doing what is best for his constitutes.

6/30/2009 1:21:39 PM

nc actually will fair quite well under estimations i saw a while back. in the top 5 or so states. so . . .

6/30/2009 1:27:09 PM

that's good news. link?

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 1:29 PM. Reason : if it was a while back, and you can't find it, then a summary will do]

6/30/2009 1:28:29 PM

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/cap-and-trade-state-by-state.html

6/30/2009 1:29:32 PM

lol, so it will only cost those of us in NC "a little bit" to improve the environment....in no noticeable way. Good to know.

6/30/2009 2:09:40 PM

In the year 2020.

6/30/2009 2:17:49 PM

awesome. Maine needs more expensive energy. We already pay a shitload.

We used to have a nuke, but its been shutdown for a while. I wish they'd put up another but this state is filled with morons. We cant even get fucking wind turbines because people worry they'll look bad and kill migratory birds.

worst goddamned state.

6/30/2009 2:18:32 PM

Yeah, Maine does generally suck wicked hard, no?

6/30/2009 2:23:41 PM

yessah

6/30/2009 2:26:30 PM

You know I bet this bill doesn't count wood pellets as a renewable energy source does it.

6/30/2009 2:29:36 PM

Quote :

"In the year 2020 2100."

fixed it.

lol, not a single delegate from Connecticut read the bill before voting.

[Edited on June 30, 2009 at 2:55 PM. Reason : man i'd be pissed if i lived in CT]

6/30/2009 2:29:50 PM

Quote :

"What about the other sources of carbon emissions, like industrial use and electricity production? They are certainly relevant insofar as the regional impacts of Waxman-Markey go, but they are not relevant in terms of interpreting the CBO's estimates, which seek to determine the direct cost to taxpayers in the form of higher energy prices only."

So, take whatever his figure for NC is so far (<$50) and add whatever the price increase for electricity will be.

6/30/2009 3:52:01 PM

Quote :

"42% Say Climate Change Bill Will Hurt The Economy Tuesday, June 30, 2009 Email to a Friend AdvertisementAmericans have mixed feelings about the historic climate change bill that passed the House on Friday, but 42% say it will hurt the U.S. economy. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that just 19% believe the climate change bill passed by the House on Friday will help the economy. Fifteen percent (15%) say it will have no impact, and 24% are not sure. A majority of both Republicans (56%) and adults not affiliated with either major political party (52%) think the bill will hurt the economy. Among Democrats, however, 30% say it will help the economy, 23% that it will hurt and 21% say it will have no impact. Forty-seven percent (47%) of investors say the bill is bad for the economy, compared to 37% of non-investors. The divide on the question between populist or Mainstream America and the Political Class is a wide one. Fifty percent (50%) of Mainstream Americans say the climate control measure will hurt the economy, but two-thirds of the Political Class (67%) say it will help. As for the bill itself, 37% of all Americans at least somewhat favor it, while 41% are at least somewhat opposed to it. Twenty-two percent (22%) are not sure what to make of it. But there’s more intensity on the “no” side: Only 12% strongly favor the measure, but more than twice as many (25%) strongly oppose it. "

Imagine that.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/42_say_climate_change_bill_will_hurt_the_economy

7/1/2009 9:43:29 AM

Yes, imagine that. Americans don't want to be taxed in the short term and also don't want to handle long term obligations either.

I WANT EVERYTHING NOW AND I DONT CARE ABOUT TOMORROW

7/1/2009 9:56:03 AM

^
More like Americans don't want to be taxed based on some phony Al-Gore science. A science for which Obama's own EPA report has to be supressed because it doesn't support his tax-grabbing goals.

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

7/1/2009 10:20:51 AM

If by being taxed it forces the economy to reinvent itself

IM ALL FOR IT

7/1/2009 10:30:59 AM

1. The politicians say this isn't a tax.

2. Obama promised he wouldn't tax anyone below 250k

3. ....

4. Profit?

7/1/2009 11:22:10 AM

From what I've gathered, the majority of the middle class is getting refunded. I mean the average citizen in NC is only spending 50-100 year 11 years from now. If it means bringing a new economy and mfg leadership back to this country in the form of new technologies and infrastructure overhaul here at home

ITS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY


The funny thing is, you're so fucking pissed off about this, but you're happy to pay an extra .75 on the gas you have been buying for the past month as oil has been gamed up to $70 on absolutely no fundamentals at all.

For me, thats about $80 month ($960 yr >> $100 yr) at these levels given to Middle Eastern sheiks as we continue to let the market decide (and game) what this country should do in regards to energy and oil in particular.

Do you want to know what China has been doing while this oil was super cheap? Massively boosting their SPR. You know what we did when oil was super expensive, started adding to our SPR. You know what we we're doing with our SPR when oil was super cheap? NOT A GOD DAMN THING.


I'll give it to you guys and I said it earlier in this thread that it's entirely possible this thing gets gamed. It's almost entirely likely. But you're hate is missplaced over $100 yr 11 years from now while you have been for the past 2 years and will be for the next 11 continue to get fucked over and over and over again by guys that are smarter than everyone else in the world and stand squarely at the gateway of the economy fleecing you as you pass by.

7/1/2009 11:41:54 AM

^your argument is flawed, b/c I'm not getting upset over $100 of extra expenses 10 years from now. I'm upset about the thousands I'll be spending 10 years from now, as well as the millions of people who will lose their jobs.


And no I'm not happy about the increased price of gasoline recently (but raising it further isn't the solution!). However the price of gas goes up every summer, though I'll admit the price was bumped up a bit in March/April through other factors.

I hate it. I spent $320 (10 tanks) on gasoline in June. Not fun at all

7/1/2009 11:54:33 AM

Quote :

"More like Americans don't want to be taxed based on some phony Al-Gore science. A science for which Obama's own EPA report has to be supressed because it doesn't support his tax-grabbing goals. "

Quote :

"Yes, imagine that. Americans don't want to be taxed in the short term and also don't want to handle long term obligations either. "

Both of you got it completely wrong. No matter if you listen to the world's climatologist warnings or Rush Limbaugh calling the world flat
and the sky blue; you should not support this bill. Nothing is really accomplished beyond funding special interests, increasing gov't
bureacracy, and hurting the economy with additional taxes as well as regulations. All the global warming scientists should be pissed
that this bill instead of directly implementing ways and funding programs to decrease our CO2 footprint; the bill just creates a bunch of
political hogwash masked as a "clean air act" that is nothing more than going around your ass to get to your head as far as helping the environment is concerned.

this is completely neglecting the issue that many other known and more verified ecological hazards are produced by our society that are
getting overshadowed by the over concern of global warming.

Quote :

"ITS A SMALL PRICE TO PAY "

price to pay for what??? Goldman and Sachs increased profit margin by manipulating the virtual carbon market. Last time i checked
the bill is concerned more about cash for clunkers, helping out "poor households", and charging fees to regions that do not use
sun/wind/geothermal power (even if the region is not viable for such sources); than funding global warming research, planting trees,
and providing grants to develop better greener technology.

7/1/2009 11:59:36 AM

My biggest beef is more that this wont cause any significant changes. For example, Maine is still going to be hugely dependent on oil for fuel. Since burning wood pellets also emits co2, its not considered renewable even though it would decrease dependence on foreign oil.

The plan should be to increase the popularity of individual power generation where possible plus adding new nukes. Maine will probably still have high heat oil consumption, but the rest of the nation will have significant reductions in co2 emmisions.

The current plan is to tax people who use oil heat even though other alternatives are just as expensive or more expensive. Its fucking stupid.

7/1/2009 12:02:18 PM

Quote :

"power generation where possible plus adding new nukes."

currently the plan does not reward nuclear energy as a designated "renewable energy source"

so technically a region could have 100% nuclear power which would have 0 CO2 footprint and still get a surcharge while a 80% coal smog burning region would meets its "renewable quota" if the region was lucky and had a favorable wind pattern allowing 20% of its energy to be from wind mills.

7/1/2009 1:16:12 PM

Right. Yet another reason this law is pointless and stupid. Anyone who defends it at all is literally retarded.

7/1/2009 1:22:06 PM

I'm an environmentalist....and this bill is disgusting.

7/1/2009 2:03:56 PM

^^^^the point is to price in environmental damage into the price. i'm sorry that maine residents live in a place where they have to pollute to stay warm. perhaps they should come up with some ingenious ways to get around that. that is what the optimistic part of me hopes cap and trade will do: encourage innovation. unfortunately there aren't the votes in the house or the senate to pass this bill without stupid concessions to coal and farm states. i wish that there could be a more pure cap and trade bill (also without protectionism). but like everything else, small interest groups have an inordinate amount of power in the congress. also nuclear would have an advantage in that it wouldn't need to purhcase carbon credits whereas other more polluting forms of energy would (at least in a bill that didn't have exclusions for political purposes).

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

[Edited on July 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2009 2:35:19 PM