Tweet
Ok seriously..... can any one tell me what this cap and trade nonsense is all about..... and explain it in a non-politically flavored fashion...... Save the left and right horse shit for the talking heads.
-
-
Re: Cap and Trade
Another form of taxation for a carbon based sphere that they call earth.
God help you if you get Cremated They will want a few dollars off your dead carbon based carcass.
You can Cap and trade my ass if it makes one bit of difference to the environment, but the people who "trade" will make margin As will the Governments.
Chalk up another one for the Financial Freaks.
Ok - basically
Cap on carbon emissions Exceed or save and you can trade the difference. Barter but with a middleman or two shaving a margin for the New Bentley.
The whole Planet is Carbon based so they said over drinks - there is a Dollar in this if we can Derivate the Excessive users against the Savers.
Crock of Shit - Coal = Pure carbon (used to produce Power) = BAD / Solar generation of power = GOOD.......................................... BUT
Solar costs more in Carbon based materials to set up and has a 20 year max lifespan before it has to be renewed again and again But this is not taken into the equation.
A Dead Tree is a store of carbon = Burn it to release energy (Carbon energy). Grow a tree and it will over time store Carbon through Co2 = 1 carbon and 2 oxygen (energy from the sun transformed).
The real answer is Grow trees (and any thing that absorbs Carbon dioxide) Not to frigging tax Natures way of balance.
In essence they have derived a way to tax your breathing/ living/heating/power/gas/oil/fertilizer/steel/aluminium/glass/food prep/cremation/burial/cars/light/shoes/clothes/fireplace/beer/scotch/bourbon/tires/meat/poultry/fireworks/paint/bricks/stainless steel/......... Any thing that is produced with energy or can be burnt back to Carbon, is a target for taxation - Fight this lunacy as it is, was,and always will be a Carbon based World and they want to cap and trade the World (Cause there is a Dollar in it for some and a dollar out for a whole lot more).
Now I'm In need of Medication to kill my thoughts..... Please excuse -
Re: Cap and Trade
I have been reading threads for about an hour now, and each seems to be more vituperative and demonizing than the last. I can barely make out an economic post among the references to Stalin, abortion, the eco-frauds, the repukes, the Nazis, Joseph Mengela, Adolph Hitler, pot-head liberals, etc. ;)Originally posted by thunderdownunder View Post
Can we take a collective deep breath and try to keep iTulip from turning into 4chan? Or perhaps I'll just start posting pedobear links...
Anyway: let's try to boilt his down to a dichotomy condusive to productive discussion. There are a few premises to be addressed regarding cap-and-trade:
(1) Does Carbon effect the environment in a negative way?
(2) If so, can we meaningfully influence the emission of Carbon?
(3) If so, would cap-and-trade be an effective way to do so?
I imagine the debate here is going to be regarding (1) and (2). I will also guess that (1) and (2) will eventually lead to a reference to the Nazis. C'est le vie.
Assuming (1) and (2) are true, and regarding (3): I am of the persuasian that taxation is usually a more effective means to modify behavior than regulation. I am also of the persuasian that allowing for the trade of taxation credits would acheive the same amount of influence in a market efficient way.
My main issue with cap-and-trade is that I do not beleive it to be optimal: The environment, as it were, collectively belongs to all humans. This includes Americans, Africans, and the inhabitants of the Maldives. Allowing some to benefit while creating a burden for others is not just. Classic externality.
Thus, the income derived from cap-and-trade should accrue directly to all effected.
The most likely outcome, however, is that carbon producers will merely adjust their prices to reflect this new cost of doing business; the tax money will go to the government. In effect, then, cap-and-trade would merely be a transfer of wealth from citizens to government.
There is another way, however: cap-and-dividend. The principle is that any monies generated by capping carbon would be direct deposited into the bank accounts of people paying for the utilities - mitigating the habit of taxed entities to pass of the rise in cost to their customers.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...dent-not-tradeIf you tried to dump harmful waste on the property next door, your neighbor would either stop you or require you to pay a fee. But if you dump carbon dioxide into the air, no one charges you a penny because no one, as yet, owns the air. This free ride results in what economists call a market failure. The actual costs of polluting the atmosphere are enormous, but polluters don’t pay them. Instead future generations are stuck with the tab.
A carbon tax, or a carbon cap-and-trade system, can fix this market failure, but because American politicians are loath to impose taxes, a cap is far more likely. Under a cap, government sets a limit on total carbon emissions and issues tradable permits up to the limit. Each year the number of permits declines, reducing emissions over time. Permits can be issued to companies that emit carbon dioxide or to those that supply it for burning—oil, coal and natural gas firms. Issuing permits to suppliers is easier to administer because no smokestacks need to be monitored.
Cap and trade may sound simple, but it’s not. A trillion-dollar question lurks below the surface: Who will own the air? Capping emissions makes carbon scarcer and lets private companies raise the carbon price, which companies will likely pass on to consumers. But who ultimately gets the extra money depends on who has the initial rights to the air. It might seem self-evident that the air belongs to everyone, but when capping was first proposed, the assumption was that polluting companies would be given permits for free. Europe, which operates the world’s leading cap-and-trade system, did just that. Not surprisingly, this led to higher prices for consumers and profits for polluters.
Seeing this, several U.S. states that wanted to cap carbon dioxide decided to auction permits rather than handing them to companies for free. In this approach the auction revenue goes to government, which ostensibly uses it to improve air quality. But consumers still pay higher prices, and many families are hit hard. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average American family would pay $1,160 in higher prices if carbon emissions had to be cut 15 percent. And that burden would get heavier as the cap got tighter.
Dividends Instead
To offset the load placed on consumers, a third form of carbon capping, known as cap and dividend, has gained support. Under this plan, permits are auctioned, but the revenues do not go to the government; they go back to citizens in the form of dividends, distributed equally among everyone, perhaps even wired directly to people’s bank accounts or debit cards. The plan is modeled after the Alaska Permanent Fund, which pays equal dividends to Alaskan residents from the proceeds generated from state oil leases.
In essence, cap and dividend treats the air as a managed commons in which everyone owns a share. Liberals such as former secretary of labor Robert Reich and conservatives such as Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee support the approach, as do a growing number of climate scientists and economists. Some U.S. states as well as other countries are also considering the idea.
As in other forms of capping, carbon emissions prices will rise as the cap declines, spurring private capital to flow into clean alternatives such as wind and solar power. The crucial difference is that the dividends should rise along with the carbon prices, easing the impact on consumers.
This approach also relieves pressure on politicians who want to do something about global warming but don’t want to impose burdens on the public, a key consideration at a time when high fuel prices and the economy are explosive issues. And the system is simple to understand and administer.
Cap and dividend has another advantage: it creates a virtuous circle, in which how people fare depends on what they do. The more carbon any company or individual burns (directly or indirectly), the more that company or individual pays. Because everybody gets the same amount back, people gain if they conserve and lose if they guzzle. This is fair to all, and the poor come out ahead because they burn less carbon than other people do. Because the transition to a far more carbon-free economy will be long and difficult, it is vital to operate a system in which everyone has a chance to win. Otherwise people will get angry, and political support will crumble.Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
Back now - feel much better.
In deference to Munger I wiped what I was going to say - He is right - Calm discussion. It Is hard to be calm when you lose your next job over just this.
I will get back to this Tread but not tonight.Last edited by thunderdownunder; June 25, 2009, 06:55 AM.Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
And the atmosphere used to be anoxic until anaerobic microbes evolved and proliferated. So what.Originally posted by thunderdownunder View PostBack now - feel much better.
The Earth spins on an axis and it wobbles a bit. The earths crust is also fluid.
Grapes used to grow in England, Africa had rainforest's where dessert now reigns (Oasis's are remnants ). Now frozen Greenland had abundant forests. Shells and fossilized fish are evident miles from seas. Oil is drilled miles below the Earths surface where plants must have grown in the sun. The Earth moves and changes slowly and continually - get over it or move to another planet.
Just don't tell me you want to tax life itself because your too lazy to go out and create something and work for a living you bastard greenie fruitloops.
In fact I'd wager that the only True wilderness is the space between your crusty Ears
My those meds wore off quick
- please excuse 
Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
thank you munger.
I think thunder's point is trying to state that assumptions #1 and #2 are incorrect, and he is going to have his livelyhood squished. He is angry.
I really appreaciate your explanation. If #1 and #2 are correct, then the cap and dividend seems to make sense. If the gvt enacts cap with auctionable permits and the gvt gets the money, then the economy, and the poor and middle class will be punished. Your hero CM can afford few thousand bucks a year in higher energy costs to heat his house and drive his car. However a median income family, with kids and a mortgage, $1000 buck a year can mean the difference between being able to afford their mortgage payments or not. The program will be dressed up as a way to save the planet and the money will go to alt-E. However just like other gvt programs with big money it will largely be wasted, and a bunch will siphoned off to pay for some dam fool war, or a bridge to nowhere.
I am unsure about #1&2. I have heard that the global temperature has been in a slight decline since 1998, and most of the warming in the last century occured before 1950? Is this true? It's so hard to know the truth. Everybody's got an agenda.
With the amount of money that's on the table and the gvt broke of course the're going to go for the "gvt owns the air" plan. The science will be censored to go along with their agenda.
If I were a congressman, I would vote for the cap-and-dividend. Even if there is not man made global warming, I still think we are facing peak cheap energy, and this would be a way to make the cheap stuff last a bit longer.Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
Thank you for your attempt to frame the issue in a calm, clear manner. And I agree with the above sentiment. Of course, some topics seem to bring out more vitriol and hyperbole than others.Originally posted by Munger View Post
I am generally in favor of anything that reduces pollution. But cap and trade seems to me to be something of a get-out-of-jail-free card for wealthy countries, who generally produce the most emissions. We can "pay for our sins" without making any serious efforts to reduce our pollution, while the rest of the world suffers the effects of that pollution (along with all of us). Life is not fair, of course, but the idea does not sit well with me.
Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
So instead of trying to fix the problem all cap and trade does is just tax it?
Is this all based on the idea that global warming is man made?Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
That's my understanding, but maybe someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I am wrong.Originally posted by Guinnesstime View Post
There would be a "cap" (limit) placed on the amount of carbon emissions a particular company / country could emit. If you produce more than that, you have to pay. With the "trade" part, you buy allowances for a certain amount of carbon emissions from another company or country who isn't using all of theirs. This covers the amount that you are over your allotted limit. It seems to me this system does not really force a reduction of emissions levels beyond the possible financial motivation to not have to pay so much for going over the limits.Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
Rather that cap-and-trade or cap-and-dividend, why not just build atomic power plants? Atomic power emits no carbon, and produces an enormous amount of energy that could bring energy prices DOWN. No new taxation or ridiculous carbon accounting schemes would be required.Originally posted by charliebrown View Post
The answer is so darn simple, but the eco-frauds and the economists in universities like to complicate things, as usual. And government always loves complicated new taxation schemes.
Remember: just ONE large atomic power plant could provide for the energy needs of 750,000 homes. We could decorate the driveway to that atomic power plant with solar lights or windmills, native trees, or whatever is in fashion with the so-called ecologists in universities.Last edited by Starving Steve; June 25, 2009, 03:03 PM.Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
I can't wait for the derivative market on bundled "cap and trade whatevers." All backed by carbon taxes. Ha ha ha ha.Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
It would be funny, except it's true.Originally posted by goadam1 View Post
Through origination, trading and distribution of emissions certificates, J.P. Morgan's environmental markets team assists clients by addressing the present and future challenges of a carbon constrained environment. Where clients are looking to set a strategy by their own volition, we help them achieve the appropriate balance for a reduced carbon footprint. When compliance with an emissions trading scheme is the key driver, the team assists companies in meeting their mandatory emission reduction targets and managing the risks of purchasing carbon emission reduction offsets.
http://www.jpmorgan.com/pages/jpmorg.../environmental
Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
I think Munger's basic outline is a good frame. I'll skip points 1&2 as they have been decided in the US. In recent surveys, 75% of the American public wants to control GHGs and have voted congress people into power that are going to create that legislation. So let's skip to point 3 which gets to the heart of your question. For the US we may want to ask what HR 2454, (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009), is all about. I think the House is voting on this legislation today.Originally posted by Guinnesstime View Post
The bill sets a cap on GHG emmissions which effectively raises the price of carbon based fuel. By doing this the bill will raise the mean cost of all energy. It is a tax on gasoline, coal, natural gas, etc.
In a secondary way it will raise the cost of items like food that require large energy inputs. To off-set the regressive nature of this tax, the bill sets aside a portion of the tax as credits for low and middle income families in an attempt to mitigate the overall cost to those least able to pay. CBO estimates the average cost to be $890 per family in the year 2020 before credits and $175 after credits are applied. The lowest 20% of income earners would receive an overall $40 credit. This is an attempt to make the tax somewhat progressive but a closer reading will show that the highest burden is on middle income earners, (no surprise there...
).
Within the context of this bill, CBO estimates the cost per ton of CO2 emissions to be $28. To get a rough estimate of the additional cost for say, a gallon of gasoline we can calculate the weight of CO2 emissions from a gallon of gas, (about 20 lbs.), divide 2,000 lbs. by 20 and then $28 by the result. As you can see, the tax on a gallon of gasoline will be about 28 cents in 2020, (using 2010 US$ values). If a person drives a car getting 20 mpg, 15,000 miles per year, it will result in $210 per year in additional taxes.
The full CBO report is here if you'd like more detail:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc...TradeCosts.htmComment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
Actually if I understand correctly part of the thinking behind cap and trade is to create a market mechanism to direct carbon reducing investments to where they have the most effect. In other words instead of mandating that everyone has to reduce carbon by the same [propotionate] amount, those that can do so more efficiently can benefit by trading some of that benefit to those industrial sectors that are unable...presumably the end result is the "biggest bang for the buck"...that's the theory at least.Originally posted by Guinnesstime View Post
Now, once Wall Street gets involved no doubt something else will be the result. But then we'll have the Federal Reserve with all its new regulatory powers to protect us, so no need to lose any sleep...:rolleyes:
This is setting up to be one of the most polarizing debates ever. Interesting how a little recession and a few job losses around the world can so quickly change the tone.Originally posted by santafe2 View PostI think Munger's basic outline is a good frame. I'll skip points 1&2 as they have been decided in the US. In recent surveys, 75% of the American public wants to control GHGs and have voted congress people into power that are going to create that legislation. So let's skip to point 3 which gets to the heart of your question. For the US we may want to ask what HR 2454, (the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009), is all about. I think the House is voting on this legislation today.
The bill sets a cap on GHG emmissions which effectively raises the price of carbon based fuel. By doing this the bill will raise the mean cost of all energy. It is a tax on gasoline, coal, natural gas, etc.
In a secondary way it will raise the cost of items like food that require large energy inputs. To off-set the regressive nature of this tax, the bill sets aside a portion of the tax as credits for low and middle income families in an attempt to mitigate the overall cost to those least able to pay. CBO estimates the average cost to be $890 per family in the year 2020 before credits and $175 after credits are applied. The lowest 20% of income earners would receive an overall $40 credit. This is an attempt to make the tax somewhat progressive but a closer reading will show that the highest burden is on middle income earners, (no surprise there...).
Within the context of this bill, CBO estimates the cost per ton of CO2 emissions to be $28. To get a rough estimate of the additional cost for say, a gallon of gasoline we can calculate the weight of CO2 emissions from a gallon of gas, (about 20 lbs.), divide 2,000 lbs. by 20 and then $28 by the result. As you can see, the tax on a gallon of gasoline will be about 28 cents in 2020, (using 2010 US$ values). If a person drives a car getting 20 mpg, 15,000 miles per year, it will result in $210 per year in additional taxes.
The full CBO report is here if you'd like more detail:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc...TradeCosts.htm
From today's WSJ:
JUNE 26, 2009
Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.
If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)
The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality.
The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.
Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.
The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.
Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.
This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.
Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.
Comment
-
Re: Cap and Trade
Here's a quick summary [that I thought was pretty helpful] of the major points in the House bill from AP yesterday:Originally posted by Guinnesstime View Post
Major provisions of House climate and energy bill
By The Associated Press – Thu Jun 25, 1:22 pm ET
In an effort to curb global warming, the House is considering legislation that calls for:
• Reducing greenhouse gases by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050 through a cap-and-trade program that allows pollution permits to be bought and sold.
• Limiting emissions from major industrial sources, including power plants, factories, refineries and electricity and natural gas distributors. Emissions from agriculture would be excluded from the cap.
• Controlling carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels and limiting six other greenhouse gases.
• Allowing companies to meet emission-limiting targets by investing in offset projects such as tree planting and forest protection.
• Requiring electric utilities to produce at least 12 percent of their power from renewable sources such wind and solar energy by 2020, and requiring as much as 8 percent in energy efficiency savings.
• Imposing tighter performance standards on new coal-fired power plants and providing $1 billion a year in development money for capturing carbon dioxide from such plants.
• Establishing standards that will require new buildings to be 30 percent more energy-efficient by 2012 and 50 percent more efficient by 2016.
• Protecting consumers from rising energy costs by giving rebates and credits to low-income households.
Comment
Comment