Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Cap and Trade?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts

    Cap and Trade?

    I'm surprised to see that no one has uttered a word about Cap and Trade Bill that is making its way to the U.S. Senate. I thought I'd come back to see a thread started but was disappointed to see no such thread.

    Anyhow,

    I want to shed some light onto the subject of how erratic and vile the Bill is - complements of Wall Street Journal:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124587942001349765.html
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

    For those of you that are unaware, our sun is acting very curious. It is continuing to quite down and being coming less active. Along with it are mounting reports of record breaking low temperatures. Take a look for yourself from the experts:

    http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/Senat...30/230546.html

    "As I wrote last week, it snowed in England early this month. Arizona has seen its coolest June weather since 1913, summer in Utah is coming a month late and there were record low maximum temperatures in 41 states and a total of 593 new records according to iceagenow.com."

    Hopefully iceagenow.com will give you a new perspective; telling you what is really going on in our world:

    http://www.iceagenow.com/

    I dare you to do something different and look into this. Please do it for yourself.

    Good day!

    -Wiggs


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Wiggles For This Useful Post:


  4. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,540
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 271 Times in 199 Posts
    How long is it going to take the populace to realize that higher average global temperature does not equal higher temperature at any given location?

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Meloncov For This Useful Post:


  6. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    291
    Thanks
    64
    Thanked 122 Times in 60 Posts
    It isn't really news to anyone that the earth has undergone climate changes in the past and that it will do so again in the future, neither is the fact that politicians spend most of their days sitting around with their heads up their asses.

    Edit: Come to think of it, this may actually be news to a lot of people after all.


    My sketchbook is bigger than yours.
    (not really)

    Cool people you might want to check out:

    Dy.laneA

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Crass For This Useful Post:


  8. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,160
    Thanks
    1,477
    Thanked 852 Times in 531 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Crass Patrón View Post
    Edit: Come to think of it, this may actually be news to a lot of people after all.
    it's true. I went to college with a kid who didn't even know what the constitution is--none the less care or have any idea what the government is truly about.
    "Be either full-assed or no-assed. There is no half assed."

    SSG SKETCHPOT/FLYING RADISHES/ OR JUST PLAIN AWESOME.
    KT | Reutte | Darkmoon |Asatira | AnthonyV

    [CENTER]
    My Website
    ~ My Sketchbook ~ My Blog ~ My Twitter ~ My Deviantart ~

  9. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    505
    Thanks
    585
    Thanked 158 Times in 96 Posts
    And last 2 weeks it was insanely warm in holland.

    No man made ice age comming. Spend your time wisely, like on art!
    (23:41:52) (ArneLurk) I woner of there are people who have hairy penises

  10. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    leeds, england
    Posts
    647
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked 173 Times in 106 Posts
    "Next week, next month, next year, it's not a question of if, only when.
    One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. "
    dan's sketchbook


    The ssg with no name.. for now
    NRX - Frasermct - Walid D - The wannabe Dr, Mr Phil - Dilated

  11. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nrx View Post
    "Next week, next month, next year, it's not a question of if, only when.
    One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. "
    Oh my god! What ever will we do!?!?

    And people say it's fear mongering to cite the obvious threat of radical spending bills that pass on mountains of debt to future generations, turning a blind eye to the threats and trespasses of our enemies, and the looming threat of more domestic and/or foreign terrorists attacks. Yet, it's simply science(though the debate is not over and there is more evidence linking climate change to sources beyond our control than before- unless you want to block out the sun.) to ramble on like Y2K madmen with this chicken little and "the sky is falling" attitude.

    The EPA even states that it may lower the atmosphere temp by a few 10ths of a degree over the next 90 years. It won't make much difference to us other than raising energy prices, and could very well create more carbon emissions when jobs ship over seas to places that realized Cap & Trade was stupid and rejected it after it wrecked their economy, or ones that could see how bad it would be and never started it in the first place. As well as that most of the carbon in the atmosphere is from natural resources, not man made pollution.

    I lean to the green a bit myself, but this world worship is getting a little out of hand.

    Brought up Cap & Trade a few times before myself in some other threads. A little taken by how no one mentioned it. Then again an Alien Pop star just died and Transformers came out the day the House rushed it through. Make no mistakes, special interests and giant corporations are the ones that will benefit the most from this. Big business and big government in bed.
    Last edited by GhostValkyrie; July 6th, 2009 at 12:33 AM.

  12. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,540
    Thanks
    46
    Thanked 271 Times in 199 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Crass Patrón View Post
    It isn't really news to anyone that the earth has undergone climate changes in the past and that it will do so again in the future, neither is the fact that politicians spend most of their days sitting around with their heads up their asses.

    Edit: Come to think of it, this may actually be news to a lot of people after all.
    While that's true, the current rate of change is more than a little bit alarming.

  13. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    4,191
    Thanks
    5,154
    Thanked 2,053 Times in 1,109 Posts
    I read the first article and have a couple issues with it. First of all, CO2 is definately a pollutant. next:

    "Advocates of the system like it because "the polluter pays." Setting aside for the moment the question of whether it is justifiable to call carbon dioxide a pollutant, companies of course do not simply absorb these extra costs. Instead, they pass them on to their customers who are also, by and large, taxpayers."

    Look, if the goal is to lower the rate of pollution, then what other way is there to do it? With Cap & Trade, companies get to decide for themselves how much they want to pollute, and how much they want to pay for it, and all of a sudden, lowering their carbon footprint becomes much more lucrative. They can play with selling/trading contracts, but in the end, polluting is finally entered into their financial calculations, as it should be. Will it lead to raising energy costs for consumers? Yes, is that a bad thing? It may also lead to lower energy consumption - bad for energy business, but better overall for everyone. What other ways are there? Taxing consumers directly? Setting caps with no trade allowed?

    "The biggest abuse began right at the start of the ETS when regulators handed out too many free permits. As a result, utilities companies made windfall profits by simply selling on large numbers of unneeded credits and not passing the savings on to their customers in the form of price cuts. Despite the EU's declared goal to dole out permits based on objective criteria, industry lobbying led to an overallocation. When push comes to shove, governments will always protect their national champions."

    This is not an argument against Cap & Trade. This is an argument against governments controlled by corporations. In fact, the writer argues Cap & Trade doesn't work because the penalties are too low, not too high. He argues a more stringent penalty would be more effective - 140 Euros per ton of excess carbon produced.

    Ghost Valkyrie:
    "It won't make much difference to us other than raising energy prices, and could very well create more carbon emissions when jobs ship over seas to places that realized Cap & Trade was stupid and rejected it after it wrecked their economy"

    What economies were ever wrecked by Cap & Trade?
    Last edited by TASmith; July 6th, 2009 at 01:33 AM.

  14. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TASmith View Post
    Ghost Valkyrie:
    "It won't make much difference to us other than raising energy prices, and could very well create more carbon emissions when jobs ship over seas to places that realized Cap & Trade was stupid and rejected it after it wrecked their economy"

    What economies were ever wrecked by Cap & Trade?
    Spain.

    A direct Carbon tax is something I would be less opposed to, at least if the revenues went into the treasury. That isn't going to happen though. This is another pyramid scheme like all the damn bailouts. Members of Congress who have proposed this legislation happen to have large investments in this sector, and will legislate the creation of jobs and destruction of others.

    The costs of this system will be passed on to the consumer. Adjusting energy prices doesn't effect simply the cost of gas at the pump or electricity. Companies will pass on the cost of material manufacturing, then we will have to begin factoring in inflation and other scenarios.

    Washington's buddies run-off with the dough while the American people(consumer) are stuck with the bill at almost no benefit. Lets not even mention all the spending that's in this bill and regulation.

    First, we'll nearly double the cost of energy for struggling families. We'll raise the price of all manufactured goods to make up for the costs. We're also going to spend billions in tax payer dollars to enforce new housing standards (you know, the ones too expensive for people to keep hold of), we're going to create or shift federal jobs to inspect and regulate houses and make the government responsible for individual homes - doesn't matter if the people own them or not. It's no longer the owner's choice. We'll legislate laws requiring people to do these renovations at their expense, maybe at the expense of others if they can't afford it(or if they're in a government position). And we'll do it all in the middle of a recession that's getting worse and ticking like a time bomb from all the spending already occurring.

    This just keeps getting better and better. What next? Breathing/living tax. It's already been spoken of. Don't think it can't happen. The Clean water restoration act goes beyond simply insuring the purity and maintenance of reserves and natural formations to claiming any water, including that on your property, belongs to the government. I know you don't wanna lose hope in your hero, Smith. But this is just one power grab after another. Some change....

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GhostValkyrie For This Useful Post:


  16. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    4,191
    Thanks
    5,154
    Thanked 2,053 Times in 1,109 Posts
    From what I understand, this bill doesn't regulate individual homes. Someone tell me if I'm wrong? As for weatherizing homes, I know that was part of the bailout, but I thought the govt was paying for it. As for energy prices doubling, I hope it's not that high, but still, higher prices = more conserving. As for Spain, did that country ever have a good economy?

  17. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    11,707
    Thanks
    2,091
    Thanked 11,434 Times in 2,935 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Meloncov View Post
    the current rate of change is more than a little bit alarming.

    Anyone denying that is simply not educated.

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Jason Manley For This Useful Post:


  19. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TASmith View Post
    From what I understand, this bill doesn't regulate individual homes. Someone tell me if I'm wrong? As for weatherizing homes, I know that was part of the bailout, but I thought the govt was paying for it. As for energy prices doubling, I hope it's not that high, but still, higher prices = more conserving. As for Spain, did that country ever have a good economy?

    Govt paying for it = you paying for it.

    It's not always about the size of the economy but steady/rapid growth - steady/rapid decline. 2.2 jobs lost for every green job created. Some regulations are necessary, and I do agree about conserving energy myself ; forcing people to do so with prices that will continually climb is something I don't agree with though. Electricity? Natural Gas? Why cap these when the big deal is supposed to be carbon emissions? Green jobs are coming about, and they will continue. This swift intervention will do more harm than good and the created jobs won't make up for the losses. When prices for goods rise, ESPECIALLY IN A RECESSION, less profits will be made. Less profits, less jobs open(at least domestically.) Jobs will be outsourced, carbon emissions may very well rise once China and India get a hold - Thus unemployment rises even more.

    Of all organizations, the EPA has stated the changes in temperature

    BTW: CO is trapped due to heat, CO2 causes cooling. Not that these chemicals aren't dangerous. The earth is a living organism that should be protected, but it's also being greatly underestimated in its ability to care for itself.

    Yes, federal regulations will apparently establish national housing standards. Don't you dare think about selling that house until you get a plug for that EV you'll never have/afford, or until you shell out a couple grand for radiant barriers and such. So much for getting the housing market on it's feet. Let's not forget it's about to show another huge tumble once many of the foreclosed houses that aren't on the market are added.

    "Carbon monoxide is present in Earth's atmosphere at very low concentrations. A typical concentration of CO in Earth's troposphere is around 100 ppb (parts per billion; meaning one hundred out of every billion air molecules is carbon monoxide), although especially clean air can have concentrations as low as 50 ppb. Carbon monoxide has a typical "lifespan" of several months in Earth's atmosphere. The gas eventually reacts with oxygen (O2) to form carbon dioxide (CO2)."

    " Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide fluctuate slightly with the change of the seasons, driven primarily by seasonal plant growth in the Northern Hemisphere. Concentrations of carbon dioxide fall during the northern spring and summer as plants consume the gas, and rise during the northern autumn and winter as plants go dormant, die and decay. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas as it transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared and near-infrared...

    Plants remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, also called carbon assimilation, which uses light energy to produce organic compounds (cellulose, lipids, and various proteins) by combining carbon dioxide and water. Free oxygen is released as gas from the decomposition of water molecules, while the hydrogen is split into its protons and electrons and used to generate chemical energy via photophosphorylation."

    This is information simply grabbed from sources. If you want me to verify my studies in fire science & atmospheric toxicology I can. These chemicals are more harmful to our lungs than the environment. I suggest as better, more attractive, and lucrative alternative; We can expand forests as an offset. Manufacture mass hanging gardens/forests and create artificial land masses. But when that happens, even with a decrease in human emissions, I'm confident some nut job will begin blaming all the carbon output from plants on us.... back to square one as we find a way to destroy ourselves out the intent of protecting everything from ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Manley View Post
    Anyone denying that is simply not educated.
    Jason, we went through this in the '70s. Everyone was worried because scientists said we fucked everything up and were heading toward a new ice age and were going to frozen alive. Now it's the other way around, even with global temps stabilizing.
    Last edited by GhostValkyrie; July 6th, 2009 at 03:46 PM.

  20. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GhostValkyrie For This Useful Post:


  21. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    4,191
    Thanks
    5,154
    Thanked 2,053 Times in 1,109 Posts
    "Govt paying for it = you paying for it."

    That's not precise. The govt raises revenue in many ways, not just personal income tax, and the burden for me would be much higher if I bore the costs directly.

    "2.2 jobs lost for every green job created"

    Where's your source?

    "Electricity? Natural Gas? Why cap these when the big deal is supposed to be carbon emissions?"

    America gets most of its electricity from coal. As for natural gas, that I don't know.

    Valkyrie, and anyone else interested in guessing, here's a quick question. How many trees are there per person on Earth?

  22. #15
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TASmith View Post
    "Govt paying for it = you paying for it."

    That's not precise. The govt raises revenue in many ways, not just personal income tax, and the burden for me would be much higher if I bore the costs directly.

    "2.2 jobs lost for every green job created"

    Where's your source?

    "Electricity? Natural Gas? Why cap these when the big deal is supposed to be carbon emissions?"

    America gets most of its electricity from coal. As for natural gas, that I don't know.

    Valkyrie, and anyone else interested in guessing, here's a quick question. How many trees are there per person on Earth?
    Who said anything about income tax?

    You might as well bear the cost directly. You don't have to live with the energy costs, but if you did I promise you your bills for energy will not only rise but so will the cost of the items that are made with the usage of these products - which is just about everything.

    Tha interwebz.

    America has other sources that it gets electricity from, though it may be dominated by coal generation don't think this energy control will stop with carbon tracking.

    Smith, even if there was actual merit to this - and there isn't because it will barely impact the environment if at all (with more possibility of it creating more green house gases), it's still a bad time. The US gets 40% of it's GDP from 5 states. The top three of these being California, Texas, and New York.
    California and New York are in the tank. What do you think will happen if this gets passed? I don't think the large IT field or even the robust biomedics here will pull the state up for some time. If at all.

    I don't know, but I bet it's not enough.

  23. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,273
    Thanks
    192
    Thanked 232 Times in 219 Posts
    I used to be on the global warming bandwagon until I started seeing corporations embracing it, which always sets off alarm bells. So I looked into it and it actually is questionable whether its caused by man. We cant really think that poluting the atmosphere is good for the earth but it seems to me that the cap and trade scheme is just a huge opportunity for wall street to have a new market to exploit and manipulate at the expense of everyone else.

    please read this article:
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-sci...l-warming.html

  24. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    684
    Thanks
    320
    Thanked 256 Times in 95 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostValkyrie View Post

    I lean to the green a bit myself, but this world worship is getting a little out of hand.
    We're very specially-adapted creatures that are only able to survive in a narrow temperature range (not to mention that we depend on a rather small set of staple crops that have even more delicate and stringent needs.) Do you really think we could continue to thrive like this outside of our current environment? 'Whether or not temperature change has been exacerbated by our own activity, mass starvation is still a very real possibility for our species.

    -----------------------------------------------------
    portfolio=ORANGEMANTIS.COM
    Blog
    SKETCHBOOK
    -----------------------------------------------------

  25. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    In my own thoughts.
    Posts
    1,360
    Thanks
    434
    Thanked 561 Times in 256 Posts
    A more important question is, will this affect me in my lifetime?
    If yes: gravely? If yes again, how?
    If no: kthxbye.

    You only live once and for a very small period, it's pointless for me to worry about something which may affect other people hundreds of years from now.

  26. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    The Abyss, Manchester UK
    Posts
    2,925
    Thanks
    1,202
    Thanked 2,272 Times in 737 Posts
    Christopher Hitchens makes a good point. He says honestly he knows not-a-lot about the science of Global Warming, like most people here, if we're honest too. (Unless you're an environmental research scientist (etc) your information is second hand, and comes down to whom you believe and your own personal agenda).

    @1.20 We should ACT as if we are responsible. There is no second chance to run another experiment.


  27. #20
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Poshspice View Post
    Christopher Hitchens makes a good point. He says honestly he knows not-a-lot about the science of Global Warming, like most people here, if we're honest too. (Unless you're an environmental research scientist (etc) your information is second hand, and comes down to whom you believe and your own personal agenda).
    Point well made, but the Cap and Trade system proposed will have little to no effect on Global warming, cooling, whatever the agenda wants to call it now. As I stated before, there's much evidence it WILL produce more greenhouse gases oversees. Not to mention it will force us to rely on foreign oil/resources even more. This could also result in foreign businesses, that have jobs for Americans here, packing up and leaving to avoid taxes. That's if they don't go broke along with the thousands of small business that may not be able to afford the costs, especially once people are forced to not buy their services because they can no longer afford it.

    I understand going after oil and getting us off of foreign dependency from the Middle East, Venezuela, etc; but why go after Natural Gas when it is a step in the direction of new innovations, job creation, production, and less dependence on foreign resources.

    Whether people believe in Global warming as being man-made or not; This act should be heavily scrutinized. Elected officials that constantly attempt to misrepresent their constituents use bandwagon tactics to get well-intentioned people in a position where they inevitably screw themselves and everyone else.

    This whole thing is showing up to be a derivative scheme with massive intervention into the private lives of people by politicians who won't hold themselves to the same standards. We've already seen how many politicians from both sides of the "isle" commit crime after crime and get away with it.
    I don't want a polluted world any more than the rest of you, nor do I want to rely on foreign resources from countries that are not only adverse to our ideals and use the funds we give to fund actions that harm innocent lives; But the Cap & Trade system is another winding road to the inevitable situation Argentina faced.

    I don't oppose businesses thriving, essentially having pleased consumers to get to whatever point their at. This includes big business. However; When corruption is not only ignored, but rewarded and invited into the highest echelons of government(especially by the same people who announced themselves sworn enemies, whether I agree with their ideals of how to tackle it) - I have a problem.

    There are other ways we can solve our problems. Perhaps raise the tax on gasoline itself. And actually use those revenues productive causes, perhaps for tax credits to people who get off the grid, or give the department of energy more resources - Not giving it to large scale businesses that will destroy the competition, or to private interests that stand to gain much more than the American people.

  28. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Austin TX
    Posts
    11,707
    Thanks
    2,091
    Thanked 11,434 Times in 2,935 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by GhostValkyrie View Post


    Jason, we went through this in the '70s. Everyone was worried because scientists said we fucked everything up and were heading toward a new ice age and were going to frozen alive. Now it's the other way around, even with global temps stabilizing.

    you mean back when we had glaciers and an ice cap on the north pole?


    The emperor has no clothes my friend.

  29. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jason Manley For This Useful Post:


  30. #22
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Manley View Post
    you mean back when we had glaciers and an ice cap on the north pole?


    The emperor has no clothes my friend.
    If by that you're referring to the sun's radiation causing significant heat shifts that have coincided with global temerature highs and lows; Yeah, the emperor does have not clothes.

    And I suppose our carbon emissions caused the planetary heat shifts of other celestial bodies in the past? Perhaps including the sublimation of cold spots on Mars?

    If you're defending the Global Warming theory, I can understand. It's a worthy cause to move beyond our current dependency on forms of fuel that cause pollution. If you're defending the legislation at hand then I recommend you not bother crossing yourself. It does little, if anything to help. It could make us collapse even faster. Like whipping an inventor who's innovations and moves toward new creations simply aren't fast enough for his neighbor's liking. Eventually, the blood loss and denial of necessity will kill him.
    Last edited by GhostValkyrie; July 13th, 2009 at 03:38 AM.

  31. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Slovakia
    Posts
    4,191
    Thanks
    5,154
    Thanked 2,053 Times in 1,109 Posts
    Ghost Val, I think you're letting fear override your thinking. Sure, if America demands higher environmental standards, then some business may move elsewhere, but I think you're overestimating the amount of lost business, without a solid source to back it up, and you also need to consider this: What happens if every country uses your same logic? The answer is the status quo. But, when the richest country in the world can step up to the plate and say we care about creating a sustainable system, then other countries can jump on the bandwagon, and shame the ones who don't. We all sink or swim together.

    You keep maintaining that pollution caps won't work. The arguments presented say that caps will be set too high, that govt's will cave to business pressure. Using that as a logic to give up is pathetic. Then, the turn around that once the caps start decreasing rapidly (over 20 years or so) then it will be too much too soon, and the decreases will either have to be delayed or business will further suffer. That would be 20 years down the line, plenty of time for businesses to plan. I say let the caps start, and see what effect it has initially, and then give it a review in ten years or so.

  32. #24
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    440
    Thanks
    323
    Thanked 184 Times in 106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TASmith View Post
    Ghost Val, I think you're letting fear override your thinking. Sure, if America demands higher environmental standards, then some business may move elsewhere, but I think you're overestimating the amount of lost business, without a solid source to back it up, and you also need to consider this: What happens if every country uses your same logic? The answer is the status quo. But, when the richest country in the world can step up to the plate and say we care about creating a sustainable system, then other countries can jump on the bandwagon, and shame the ones who don't. We all sink or swim together.

    You keep maintaining that pollution caps won't work. The arguments presented say that caps will be set too high, that govt's will cave to business pressure. Using that as a logic to give up is pathetic. Then, the turn around that once the caps start decreasing rapidly (over 20 years or so) then it will be too much too soon, and the decreases will either have to be delayed or business will further suffer. That would be 20 years down the line, plenty of time for businesses to plan. I say let the caps start, and see what effect it has initially, and then give it a review in ten years or so.
    Oh, good. I'm letting fear override my judgment and studies. Should have seen that claim coming.

    There are much better ways of doing this, especially during the middle of a recession. RECESSION. 9.5% unemployment, lets do a little more damage. Bring it up to 13, eh...make it 15%. I would perhaps favor this more if it wasn't a giant windfall to line the pockets of more of the same and a few new 'too big to fails'.

    If they want to make a simple, to the point, straight bill that out lines a program that implements some form of reciprocaton of the funding or at least puts the money in the treasury so it can be given back in tax credits or to actually help people afford moving to greener forms of energy; I would be a little more inclined to agree with you.

    Lets not consider all the money it takes to even start this program, then all the money it demands in energy prices after that, and all the money it will require to keep it going. The status qou isn't only applicable when it is something you disagree with. It's authoritarian when implemented by the few on the many, and almost criminal when the topping is removed. Theft isn't justified when the cause may appear as good as saving the earth. This bill may look like a greener earth on the outside, but it swiftly changes to a greener wallstreet wallet on the inside.

    A 300+ page amendement of aged proposals hours before the vote is to be taken, and the bill wasn't even revealed until the day of? Homeland Security? Why are they involved? What, are they going to be arresting people use 'too much' energy?

    We have our disagreements, but I would have expected even you to question this type of power grab. The bill should at least be re-written to provide some bit of integrity.

    Maybe the transparency promised should be brought forward. But that's another topic I'm sure we'll discuss eventually.

  33. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Big Easy
    Posts
    1,865
    Thanks
    625
    Thanked 700 Times in 367 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TASmith View Post
    "Govt paying for it = you paying for it."

    That's not precise. The govt raises revenue in many ways, not just personal income tax, and the burden for me would be much higher if I bore the costs directly.
    Thats right, they also take it out of our social security.

Similar Threads

  1. This is a trade with someone else, I cannot let him down
    By Smvuy in forum Art Critique Center
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2011, 07:15 PM
  2. Trade
    By SakariSingh in forum Art Critique Center
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 17th, 2008, 02:13 AM
  3. Tools of the trade?
    By MichaelNoel in forum Art Discussions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 26th, 2008, 09:18 PM
  4. Looking to buy/trade a used Pen & Tablet
    By KillerQ in forum Wacom
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 1st, 2007, 01:58 PM
  5. Art: Tools of the Trade
    By id4698 in forum Fine Art
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 1st, 2007, 05:49 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast