cap and trade versus a carbon tax

[Starving Steve]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

Cow, the guy is the CEO of a coal fired power plant. Of course he'd like to keep polluting without consequence. As US cap and trade is currently written, the cost is about 3 cents per kWh. The revenue stream for a coal fired power plant is closer to 8 cents a kWh. The revenue for a natural gas fired plant is 13-20 cents per kWh.

Without knowing much about Cap-&-Trade, it sounds like a 3cent hike per kwh in residential electric bills, hence a 20 or 30% increase in power rates. Where is this increase in the cost of living going to come from?

Why? For what? --- to satisfy the agenda of the eco-frauds here on the West Coast?

Solar energy is terrible beyond belief, and so to make solar energy relatively less terrible, the eco-frauds raise the basic electric power rates for everyone?

With this kind of hidden Sierra Club agenda by the Obama bunch, I think the Repukes are going to be back in power Washington in 2012. Not that I want to see that bunch of gun-toting, xenophobic, religious hipocrits back in power, but look at what we have now--- and they call themselves Democrats!

I wanted liberalism in Washington, NOT the Sierra Club agenda.

[WildspitzE]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

"Carbon credits are like taxing life itself."

Came across that phrase somewhere, perhaps even within iTulip. Thought it was rather fitting.

I wish that people would see that the income tax is actually more deserving of that quote than carbon credits.

[we_are_toast]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

It claims for example that if the United States shut down entirely all carbon emitting sources, including all gas and coal power, all gas and diesel trucks and cars, and so forth, we could make a few hundreth's of one degree difference over the next century. Sending America back to the pre-industrial age is not sufficient justification for such a minor difference.

:p:p:p

I love these denialist pretend science papers with their calculations that are designed to fool the general public but have a ZERO chance of making it into a reviewed science publication. I like how instead of using the accepted preindustrial reference concentration of CO2 in his calculation, he goes through some convoluted silly logic to pull an absurd number out of his butt so he can reach the ridiculous conclusion above.

As far as the EPA numbers above, those are for the SO2 cap and trade system which have resulted in a significant reduction in SO2 emissions and which almost everyone involved agrees is one of the best emission reduction programs around.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

ZERO chance of making it into a reviewed science publication.

If you make being in a "reviewed science publication" your gold standard of studies, and if the reviewed publications become corrupted, you're screwed.

[we_are_toast]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

If you make being in a "reviewed science publication" your gold standard of studies, and if the reviewed publications become corrupted, you're screwed.

How about we make thousands of publications by thousands of scientists, in hundreds of peer-reviewed publications around the world as a standard? Better than gold!

[c1ue]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

As far as the EPA numbers above, those are for the SO2 cap and trade system which have resulted in a significant reduction in SO2 emissions and which almost everyone involved agrees is one of the best emission reduction programs around.

Of course outsourcing of dirty American manufacturing has nothing to do with that.

Nor simple regulatory requirements to put scrubbers in coal plant smokestacks.

And of course having a cap & trade in the US - when the dirtiest CO2 emissions are in China - makes perfect sense.

Then there's outright fraud as we've already seen with HFC-23:

http://www.islandtides.com/assets/re...al_Feb8_07.pdf

The Shanghai 3F New Materials Co manufactures the refrigerant HFC-22, producing the greenhouse gas HFC-23 as a by-product which would normally be released into the atmosphere. HFC-23 is said to be thousands of times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, and thus not releasing it can generate enormous tradable (under CDM) CO2 credits.

(According to Radio Nederland, HFC-23 is one of the gases targeted by the Montreal Convention, the purpose of which was to eliminate hydrofluorocarbons which caused holes on the earth’s ozone layer.)

So two Chinese companies in Jiangsu province are set up to process HFC-23. These two companies intend to destroy (to quote the Wall Street Journal) ‘about 125 million so-called CO2-equivalent tonnes’ of the gas. For this service they will be paid about $8 an ‘equivalent tonne,’ by a consortium that includes the World Bank, Deutsche Bank AG, and Mitsui & Co, for a total of about $1 billion.

Profits for All

But the actual cost of destroying the HFC-23 is only about $1 an ‘equivalent tonne’, so there are handsome profits to be made.

The Chinese government, for its part, has mandated that only 100% Chinese-owned companies can sell carbon credits. And the proceeds of those sales are taxed at 65%, earmarked for a fund that is used to promote cleaner forms of energy.

So everybody wins, right? European companies are happy to purchase World Bank-certified carbon Indulgences for $9 a tonne (or maybe a little more); the Chinese companies make a nice profit (more than they are making from the underlying refrigerant); the Chinese government makes a nice profit; the World Bank has product to make its carbon credit market run; and the financial traders make nice brokerage fees with a new powerful ‘product’ to trade.

Of all the CDM-eligible countries, China now produces 60% of the carbon credits, with India next at 15%. Europe and the UK, with their cap-and-trade systems, purchase 85% of these credits.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

How about we make thousands of publications by thousands of scientists, in hundreds of peer-reviewed publications around the world as a standard? Better than gold!

Peer reviewed publications are somewhat like Wikipedia in my experience, so far as accuracy is concerned.

For most subjects most of the time, each is fine in the areas they cover. I would trust Wikipedia to discuss the Pythagorean Theorem accurately.

But for controversial subjects, both can be seriously corrupted. I would not trust Wikipedia to discuss major American political figures in a fair and balance fashion.

If you claim that reviewed pubs cannot be corrupted, perhaps even seriously and for a prolonged time, then I can only write you off as hopelessly naive. Sorry.

[santafe2]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

I just won a private wager with myself. I expected that one of the first replies to my post would point this out.

Of course, anything a CEO of a coal fired plant says on this topic can be dismissed :rolleyes::rolleyes:.

I might have misprepresented the revenue streams, as I only read his article quickly. But he has a number of points regarding the global warming claims which are I believe valid. Of course, since he is the CEO of a coal fired plant, it would be a waste of your time to even consider his other points. :rolleyes:.

Is this what they call an ad hominem argument?

When you find a wolf in your field with the cattle it's normally prudent to assume he's not learning to moo.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

When you find a wolf in your field with the cattle it's normally prudent to assume he's not learning to moo.

And that's an ad lupus argument ;).

[santafe2]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

And that's an ad lupus argument ;).

That was ad timidus bovis...;)

[TheServant]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

Can't argue with you there. Just could not resist the play on "carbon" life.

[bill]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

The House Energy and Commerce Committee met to mark up legislation that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...5-1&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...0-1&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...101&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...102&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...103&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...4-1&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...101&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...102&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...103&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...104&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...2-1&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...101&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...102&highlight=

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...103&highlight=

round 2
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-18337864995f

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx

[santafe2]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

round 2
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...c-18337864995f

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx

Thanks Bill, I watched some of this today. Pretty much the usual stuff with Senators making sure their big concerns, (that they care little to nothing about), are read into the record.

Also saw this political cartoon today...I thought Starving was retired...

OilCartoon.jpg

[Starving Steve]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

Thanks Bill, I watched some of this today. Pretty much the usual stuff with Senators making sure their big concerns, (that they care little to nothing about), are read into the record.

Also saw this political cartoon today...I thought Starving was retired...

[ATTACH]1795[/ATTACH]

Maybe when there isn't diesel fuel available for the trucks to haul food or when the grocery stores you patron have some empty shelves, or when your electric power rates leave you freezing in the dark, you will begin to believe that solar power has been a terrible mistake. Maybe then you will learn that turning away from the easy and obvious approaches and instead, choosing not to drill for oil in America and Canada, choosing not to upgrade heavy oil in Alberta, and choosing not to build atomic power plants has been another costly mistake.

Some people have to learn the hard way. Some nations have to learn the hard way. Sad to say that with Obama's energy policy now, America is going to have to learn a very bitter lesson.

When the oil minister in Saudi-Arabia, America's ally, recently warned Obama that persuing(sp?) clean energy solutions will prove a very costly mistake, didn't that sink into your head?

[FRED]

Re: cap and trade versus a carbon tax

Hilarious, in a sick, sad kind of way. Thanks. :eek: