Anyone else pissed off at the Cap and Trade bill passing in the House?

[HamBungler]

Energizing the Senate cap-and-trade bill - Lisa Lerer - POLITICO.com

This has been pissing me off to no end, its original goal was to limit energy consumption but in the end I think it'll just end up fucking us over hardcore for years to come. Any other thoughts/articles are appreciated.

 

[RenegadeDave]

Yeah, I'm not very pleased with this.

 

[Lucky Seven]

I was watching them debate it the day after MJ's death fuming mad that cspan was the only station covering it while every other station was covering MJ's death and that republican's affair! THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS GOING ON! This bill really scares me.

 

[sevenstringj]

Aren't they also considering new taxes on health benefits?

I suppose they gotta dig themselves out of the $12 Trillion hole they dug themselves into somehow. God forbid they cut spending. When will people wake up and vote all these career leeches out?

 

[Gain_Junkie93]

Yes because movement towards lower emissions and overall progress towards sustainable energy would be terrible.

 

[HammerAndSickle]

I've got mixed feelings on it. It's a step in the right direction, but like everything the government touches now it just seems like it'll fuck itself up.

 

[xtrustisyoursx]

The Costs of Carbon Legislation - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute

Very good article on this subject. Both sides should be against this bill, regardless of how you feel about global warming.

 

[sevenstringj]

The Costs of Carbon Legislation - Robert P. Murphy - Mises Institute

Very good article on this subject. Both sides should be against this bill, regardless of how you feel about global warming.

That was actually rather weak. So if this thing passes, my money would lose 5% of its purchasing power by 2050? It's lost 50% of its purchasing power in just the last couple decades!

Yes because movement towards lower emissions and overall progress towards sustainable energy would be terrible.

There are plenty of companies working with and developing the technology already. Effectively taxing emissions doesn't mean progress on sustainable energy. It WILL mean more gov't revenue and something else for Wall St to speculate on. The higher costs will be passed onto consumers.

 

[Gain_Junkie93]

That was actually rather weak. So if this thing passes, my money would lose 5% of its purchasing power by 2050? It's lost 50% of its purchasing power in just the last couple decades!



There are plenty of companies working with and developing the technology already. Effectively taxing emissions doesn't mean progress on sustainable energy. It WILL mean more gov't revenue and something else for Wall St to speculate on. The higher costs will be passed onto consumers.

Of course but the problem is people do NOT want to move towards other energy sources for the most part because they are happy with the current situation. Of course benefits for the gov't are going to happen that's what they want. All the companies hard at work cannot make their technology the mainstream sometimes it takes a prod.

 

[RenegadeDave]

Of course but the problem is people do NOT want to move towards other energy sources for the most part because they are happy with the current situation. Of course benefits for the gov't are going to happen that's what they want. All the companies hard at work cannot make their technology the mainstream sometimes it takes a prod.

So in theory, Obama should veto this legislation as he said he wouldn't increase taxes on anyone making under $250k/yr. This is certainly a new tax on anyone who pays a power bill for their home. Or does this not count because it isn't a raise of the income tax, just an auxiliary tax on consumption?

Or is it only OK when the government bends to special interests when those special interests are pushing non-competitive technology that panders to the consensus crisis crowd? There's no doubt in my mind man affects the environment, but it's less likely through carbon emissions and more due to increased black body surface area. Europe tried cap and trade and it failed. Again, you have a Washington non-partisan saying that the model for this legislation is a failure (In this case, the Government Accounting Office), and again we will ignore the non-partisan and shoulder ourselves with bad policy because a bunch of suits with million dollar smiles assures us that it will be OK.

So that being said, this is an impotent tax hike that will not even come close to accomplishing the goal it set out for. It will increase the size and power of the federal govt which I guess is a good thing if you're a fan of that. It increases the cost of doing business in the US, which is never a good thing.

What's next? An excise tax on Toyotas and Hondas because they pay their workers less so it can be "more fair" for Detroit Autos because Detroit Autos are uncompetitive? The incentive to use less fossil fuels is already there. Aside from marketing potential and buying good will, it makes business sense as well. Electricity is sold by the KWH, if you're using less raw material to produce more KWH, that means less emissions AND bigger profits (assuming your competitors do not have the same technology). This tax hike is simply a tax hike under the guise of doing "good".

 

[cpnhowdy]

Yes, carbon credits are a scam. The consumer is the one that is getting screwed because we will pay more.

It is not surprising that this thing will pass. Carbon derivatives are supposed to become the largest commodity derivative market, so you really have to see who benefits the most from it. Wall Street, mostly Goldman Sachs I imagine. Wall Street has 130 lobbyists on it to push it through. They will be assessing fees and collecting them. And who will pay? You and I.

Will it help the environment? I really doubt it. According to Denninger
our carbon footprint will not go down but the rest of the world will go
up.

Math. Fifth-grade stuff. You know, grade-school - specifically, percentages.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that the "global warming" folks are right. I am not sold, but for the purpose of this discussion I'll grant the hypothesis that man is causing the planet to get warmer as a consequence of his emission of CO2 (sequestered millions of years ago into the earth's crust and elsewhere) into the atmosphere.

Here's the problem: North America has about 330 million people in it, most of them in The United States. That's a lot of people.
But Asia has 4 billion people living in it, or more than 10 times as many. And unfortunately most of them are living at a vastly inferior standard of living compared to ours. Africa has about 970 million people (three times North America), and again, nearly all are living vastly below our standard of living.
We're 1/15th of the population in question and nearly all of the rest of the people involved are going to dramatically increase their per-capita CO2 output whether we like it or not.

Herein lies the problem: While we emit more CO2 per-capita than anyone else today, we won't be emitting the most CO2 for very long on an aggregate basis.

To actually stop the increase in CO2 emissions we would have to find some way to compel the Asians and Africans to not increase their CO2 emissions.
But all possible means for them to improve their standard of living inherently involve significant and even dramatic increases in CO2 emissions per-capita.

The math is simple: Within a few years China will emit more CO2 than we will. A few years after that both Africa and India will surpass the United States. None of these regions will agree to stop emitting CO2 because to do so is to agree to keep their people perpetually poor and agrarian while we enjoy the fruits of a westernized, industrialized economy.

That's not going to happen and yet without it happening no amount of bleating about "climate change" or laws passed to curtail our CO2 output will do a thing for the climate of the planet. It will not make any material difference to the outcome; indeed, oil companies have said that they will simply move refining and other operations to nations without such pacts (like India and China!) to avoid the tax, and pass through any impact in the US directly to consumers.

The amount of CO2 emitted will not go down, but your costs will go up, making the only net effect economic: you will be poorer and whatever man-made effect exists on the climate will continue to exist.
If we were truly interested in the welfare of the planet we would recognize that short of thermonuclear war developing nations are not going to agree to stop developing. We would thus divert our attention toward dealing with the changes that come with our planet's climate, whether it is in fact warming due to our activity or whether the changes in climate are more mundane (read: due to the sun.) We would thus deploy our money where it could actually do some good, such as flood control and population relocation, along with modifying farming and other production resources to be able to suit changing climactic conditions.

Instead we have so-called "economists" like Krugman who are incapable of doing basic 5th grade math resorting to emotional pleas to try to guilt us into ignoring the basic mathematical facts: this bill will do nothing to address any actual problem and can't, simply because the lions share of the people on the planet will not agree to go along with any plan we might formulate - and this assumes the "global warming" crowd is right.

 

[BlindingLight7]

This could be the beginning of a long-long string of Gov fuck ups.


"grabs popcorn"

 

[E Lucevan Le Stelle]

So in theory, Obama should veto this legislation as he said he wouldn't increase taxes on anyone making under $250k/yr. This is certainly a new tax on anyone who pays a power bill for their home. Or does this not count because it isn't a raise of the income tax, just an auxiliary tax on consumption?

Or is it only OK when the government bends to special interests when those special interests are pushing non-competitive technology that panders to the consensus crisis crowd? There's no doubt in my mind man affects the environment, but it's less likely through carbon emissions and more due to increased black body surface area. Europe tried cap and trade and it failed. Again, you have a Washington non-partisan saying that the model for this legislation is a failure (In this case, the Government Accounting Office), and again we will ignore the non-partisan and shoulder ourselves with bad policy because a bunch of suits with million dollar smiles assures us that it will be OK.

So that being said, this is an impotent tax hike that will not even come close to accomplishing the goal it set out for. It will increase the size and power of the federal govt which I guess is a good thing if you're a fan of that. It increases the cost of doing business in the US, which is never a good thing.

What's next? An excise tax on Toyotas and Hondas because they pay their workers less so it can be "more fair" for Detroit Autos because Detroit Autos are uncompetitive? The incentive to use less fossil fuels is already there. Aside from marketing potential and buying good will, it makes business sense as well. Electricity is sold by the KWH, if you're using less raw material to produce more KWH, that means less emissions AND bigger profits (assuming your competitors do not have the same technology). This tax hike is simply a tax hike under the guise of doing "good".

A few points:

-As stated in Nature, 423 in Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate - E. Kalnay and M. Cai, deforestation (which has occurred on a vast scale throughout human history, far greater than the area of land covered by human habitation) generally results in an increased albedo and thus a decrease in radiative forcing - contradicting the hypothesis that decreased albedo is responsible for global warming. It probably IS carbon dioxide.

-EU cap and trade policy has had very little effect because the cap was chosen to be far too high. It has subsequently been decreased and, as such, is now becoming a meaningful factor. That doesn't contradict the principle of such an idea working.

-The last section is plain wrong. You're overlooking the fact that burning fossil fuels is a really cheap way to produce energy, and improving process efficiency is a hell of a lot more expensive in general terms than just burning more fuel.

 

[RenegadeDave]

A few points:

-As stated in Nature, 423 in Impact of urbanization and land-use change on climate - E. Kalnay and M. Cai, deforestation (which has occurred on a vast scale throughout human history, far greater than the area of land covered by human habitation) generally results in an increased albedo and thus a decrease in radiative forcing - contradicting the hypothesis that decreased albedo is responsible for global warming. It probably IS carbon dioxide.

-EU cap and trade policy has had very little effect because the cap was chosen to be far too high. It has subsequently been decreased and, as such, is now becoming a meaningful factor. That doesn't contradict the principle of such an idea working.

-The last section is plain wrong. You're overlooking the fact that burning fossil fuels is a really cheap way to produce energy, and improving process efficiency is a hell of a lot more expensive in general terms than just burning more fuel.

1. Parking lots, asphalt shingle roofs, roadways, all of these have a LOWER SRI than forest canopies. These also have become more prevalent in recent history (within the last 50 years). You're comparing the effects of deforestation over the course of human history as opposed to deforestation in a post-industrial revolution world where blackbody surface areas became more ubiquitous. Climb a ladder on a summer day and work on a shingle roof, and you tell me it doesn't affect the ambient temperature. Easier yet, take a step from a concrete sidewalk (high SRI) onto an asphalt parking lot (low SRI)while wearing a pair of shorts. The increased ambient temperature is very apparent. There is absolutely no disputing the heat island effect that major cities have.

2. Show me evidence.

3. And you're overlooking a basic economic principle. If prices are constant and you can maintain your output levels while using fewer raw materials your profits margins increase.

 

[E Lucevan Le Stelle]

1. Parking lots, asphalt shingle roofs, roadways, all of these have a LOWER SRI than forest canopies. These also have become more prevalent in recent history (within the last 50 years). You're comparing the effects of deforestation over the course of human history as opposed to deforestation in a post-industrial revolution world where blackbody surface areas became more ubiquitous. Climb a ladder on a summer day and work on a shingle roof, and you tell me it doesn't affect the ambient temperature. Easier yet, take a step from a concrete sidewalk (high SRI) onto an asphalt parking lot (low SRI)while wearing a pair of shorts. The increased ambient temperature is very apparent. There is absolutely no disputing the heat island effect that major cities have.

2. Show me evidence.

3. And you're overlooking a basic economic principle. If prices are constant and you can maintain your output levels while using fewer raw materials your profits margins increase.

1. The urban heat island effect is very localised. It wouldn't be affecting ocean temperatures, or ice caps, or glaciation...

2. The reason EU cap and trade failed, AS CITED IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE, was that the price of additional units fell so low due to oversupply that it didn't affect emissions in the slightest.

3. Ignoring the fact that market economics ignores externalities such as pollution and resource depletion until they become a bottleneck, which is precisely when it's way too fucking late to do anything about it (which is why government or some kind of collective action has a place in addressing problems "free markets" inherently miss)... you don't seem to be seeing that increases in efficiency aren't generally free. If it costs more to retool, using your example, a power plant to improve its efficiency than you'll get in returns for using less fuel over a reasonable length of time - it plain won't get done.

It looks even worse for expensive renewable energy sources and nuclear power (which you shouldn't get me on to... nuclear energy has been fucked over by worthless anti-reprocessing treaties, which prevent an easy solution to the nuclear waste problem...), which won't get implemented at ALL without significant outside investment until the existing infrastructure becomes just too expensive to operate.

Then you realise you have the ten/fifteen year lead time because there's no expertise in building new renewable and/or nuclear plants, during which time the whole damn infastructure falls apart.

 

[MTech]

Count me in.... they keep screwing this country up more every single day.

Aren't they also considering new taxes on health benefits?

I suppose they gotta dig themselves out of the $12 Trillion hole they dug themselves into somehow. God forbid they cut spending. When will people wake up and vote all these career leeches out?

Yep, and who knows they only just voted a mass majority of those people in...and seeing as now they put Franken in everything is about to get a hell of a lot worse.

 

[RenegadeDave]

1. The urban heat island effect is very localised. It wouldn't be affecting ocean temperatures, or ice caps, or glaciation...

2. The reason EU cap and trade failed, AS CITED IN YOUR OWN ARTICLE, was that the price of additional units fell so low due to oversupply that it didn't affect emissions in the slightest.

3. Ignoring the fact that market economics ignores externalities such as pollution and resource depletion until they become a bottleneck, which is precisely when it's way too fucking late to do anything about it (which is why government or some kind of collective action has a place in addressing problems "free markets" inherently miss)... you don't seem to be seeing that increases in efficiency aren't generally free. If it costs more to retool, using your example, a power plant to improve its efficiency than you'll get in returns for using less fuel over a reasonable length of time - it plain won't get done.

It looks even worse for expensive renewable energy sources and nuclear power (which you shouldn't get me on to... nuclear energy has been fucked over by worthless anti-reprocessing treaties, which prevent an easy solution to the nuclear waste problem...), which won't get implemented at ALL without significant outside investment until the existing infrastructure becomes just too expensive to operate.

Then you realise you have the ten/fifteen year lead time because there's no expertise in building new renewable and/or nuclear plants, during which time the whole damn infastructure falls apart.

1. How is global temperature measured? Could be wrong, but the US forever used meteorlogical recording stations located sporadically throughout the land. Where are the stations located? Typically not too far from human settlements, my elementary school had one on it's campus. What is urban sprawl? Spreading out development rather than developing more densely in previously developed areas, essentially building out rather than up (less costly). So you're right, the heat island affect won't significantly affect the seas temperature, but lots of recording stations 20 years ago were in fields/forests now are amid developments, subject to heat island affect. Why is this significant? It means a lot of the data purported by a lot of warmers is compromised, if what you're suggesting that the heat island affect is insignificant is accurate.


2. You'll also notice she provides no basis for that argument other than theory in that article.

3. I won't argue that there is a certain return on investment threshold that must be met before the capital is invested. If they're not nearing there yet, I'm not pessimistic enough to think they will *never* get there.

You also have to factor in the government's role in obscuring innovation. I don't think a new oil refinery has been built in the last 30 years inside the US per government sanction. I can't reference anything off hand on that, but I remember this being touted a lot during the oil spike last summer.

Nuclear gets a lot of flack, they're building a new nuclear plant in my home state and the utility company was allowed to raise rates 20% to afford it. Then they're getting flack from the EPA because the heat dispersion will reduce the flow of the Savannah river by 1.5% (ish, might be as much as 2%) because water would be taken from the river would be lost as steam.

ADDITIONALLY:

CNSNews.com - Democrats? Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ?Retrofit? Policy for Homes and Businesses

Per section 217 of the bill, the "REEP" program. For anyone to sell an existing building, the government would first need to ensure that the building meets modern energy efficiency requirements. While a "noble" idea, it's essentially saddling all property owners with the responsibility of updating all fixtures to low flow fixtures, potentially new windows, potentially more insulation, definitely high SRI roofs.

This is going to go over like a lead balloon. If this bill passes the senate with this still in it, I'll be amazed.

EDIT: and who can forget air conditioning! Most homes are cooled with split systems that have condensers that until previously enjoyed a "loop hole" that allowed them to get by with a lower SEER rating. Now the window is closed (per LEED, anyway), so you can count on a new HVAC system in the retrofit.

 

[HamBungler]

ADDITIONALLY:

CNSNews.com - Democrats? Cap-and-Trade Bill Creates ?Retrofit? Policy for Homes and Businesses

Per section 217 of the bill, the "REEP" program. For anyone to sell an existing building, the government would first need to ensure that the building meets modern energy efficiency requirements. While a "noble" idea, it's essentially saddling all property owners with the responsibility of updating all fixtures to low flow fixtures, potentially new windows, potentially more insulation, definitely high SRI roofs.

This is going to go over like a lead balloon. If this bill passes the senate with this still in it, I'll be amazed.

This alone is gonna make it impossible for my parents to sell our house once we all move out as it'll be too expensive to retrofit everything, and they've literally been wanting to get out of here for over 10 years and I feel really bad for them

 

[E Lucevan Le Stelle]

1. How is global temperature measured? Could be wrong, but the US forever used meteorlogical recording stations located sporadically throughout the land. Where are the stations located? Typically not too far from human settlements, my elementary school had one on it's campus. What is urban sprawl? Spreading out development rather than developing more densely in previously developed areas, essentially building out rather than up (less costly). So you're right, the heat island affect won't significantly affect the seas temperature, but lots of recording stations 20 years ago were in fields/forests now are amid developments, subject to heat island affect. Why is this significant? It means a lot of the data purported by a lot of warmers is compromised, if what you're suggesting that the heat island affect is insignificant is accurate.
.

Ground based recording stations are for that reason only a small part of global temperature measurements... those ARE thrown off by the heat island effect, but IR satellites, atmospheric radiosondes (weather balloons) and ocean measuring buoys all do show warming trends - and those aren't subject to that effect.

 

[RenegadeDave]

Ground based recording stations are for that reason only a small part of global temperature measurements... those ARE thrown off by the heat island effect, but IR satellites, atmospheric radiosondes (weather balloons) and ocean measuring buoys all do show warming trends - and those aren't subject to that effect.

How long have IR radioscopes been in the air? 50-60 years? Color me pessimistic, but I don't think that they've been orbiting long enough to paint a valid historical picture of what temperature trends have done. Coring polar ice has shown that the temperature on Earth have fluctuated through heating and cooling trends long before man had picked up his first tool and sparked his first fire.

But I'm just a dumb American.