Cap and trade passed in the house

[MorGrendel]

yet another bad bill. . . unless you like higher energy costs.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/s ... aily3.html

[Rachel]

I have no doubt prices will go up, but only to reflect the actual cost of the product. I do think it is fair that people should pay to at least partly make up for the damage done in the creation. It’s kind of like the difference between paying cash and paying with credit. Unchecked pollution will cost more to fix than prevent, just not right now. I know you do not frivolously waste energy, but I know lots of people who do. Maybe they will stop if they must pay the whole price of the product up front. I do think the house should have at least considered the republicans alternatives and suggestions though, instead of completely shutting them out of the policy making process.

[ahrimen]

hahahahahahahah! you so drank the coolaid! it has nothing at all to do with protecting the inviroment its all, ALL about control. i dont know what to say that you will listen to other than that this will be a disaster for our already weakened economy MORE buisnesses will move to china, and mexico, and india, and all the places the left keeps complining that buisnesses move to and prices on everything will go up. wile more people lose thier jobs that move over seas. we will have rapid inflation followed by a more catostophic deflation and shortages. was anyone payining any attenion wile carter was in office? anyone remember gas lines? anyone ever seen how filthy socialist 3rd world countries are? do you think the chinese or russians care about thier carbon foot print?

your world i just have to live in it. :?

[MorGrendel]

Dan, behave yourself. Attack bills and political figures, not each other. The bill has merit in concept, or it never would have passed. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even if they don't agree with you.

[ahrimen]

we need one of these with the ears down. i withdaw the coolaid remark but all the rest stands. and the rest is an attack on the bill and it only has merit if you belive in "man made global warming" and i do not. ther is too much evidence against it and only circumstanceial evidence for it! The guy who started the weather channel a world acclaimed metoerolgist has proven time and time agin that this is one of the bigest frauds ever perpitrated on the people of this country and my children are going to pay the price for it, and it pisses me off.

and remember i also am intitled to my opinion.

[Rachel]

I mean this as respectfully as possible... It is the general consensus in Academia and spoken by several of my professors that global warming is irrefutably real and all of the people who believe it is contrived have bought into the very sucessful propaganda that was created to make them think that. And this propaganda has been studied and documented to reach this opinion; just not by me I don't have that kind of spare time or inclination.

Let’s agree to disagree? I believe in global warming, you don't, it’s cool. You believe I bought propaganda that it’s real, I believe you bought propaganda that its not, no biggie.

The republicans hurt themselves enough in the last administration that the democrats got the boost they needed to win enough elections to get a lot of shit done, so until public opinion shifts again and is reflected in elections things will be done at least more the way I like it than they were before.

I mostly just responded so Jeff wouldn't be talking to a wall :D

[MorGrendel]

My biggest concern on this bill is the money cycle. It is supposedly based on the Spanish laws (why I am not sure) but expanded to work in our massive infrastructure. In the end it was 1,200 pages of new regulations, which rather surprisingly, cut the EPA out of enforcing.

1. Pollution is bad; However, I am finding it hard to believe a $10 per metric ton credit will slow any real polluter down, especially when they can pass that cost on to the consumer. Sure they will ring there hands and blame the government, but no real progress will be made. Worse yet the worst offenders are grandfathered in and are essentially given amnesty. Moreover, government run facilities are exempt from these rules. So rather than be the standard, the gov’t chooses to impose rules on American business owners only. However, the timing is such to give Obama Eco-clout at the G8 (to ask India an China to adopt similar standards).

2. There are some that speculate that these pollution credits will be traded on the stock market as there is no clear explanation as to how one company trades its credits with another one. I don’t know enough about this to really speak on it, but that possibility just seem hanky to me.

3. The monies that are raised are supposed to cycle back to the people, or so the message says. That the 10% of money collected will be used to train employees to be more efficient and green. And that another 50% will go towards new technologies to make the manufacturing industry more green. Is now the time to overhaul and retrofit our ailing manufacturing industry? With the economy in the tank, who has the money to stay afloat, let alone update their factories? Also, if a lion’s share of the money is going to finding ways to reduce pollution, doesn’t it behoove a company to wait and see what the next best technology is, rather than make a costly investment in today’s technology? Isn’t that counter-productive to reducing pollution? And what of the missing 40%? That is a lot of float, estimated as much as $120 billion. I wonder into whom's pockets it will end up.

4. The bill includes an $860 million provision to create green jobs for low income persons and minorities. Again, this seems good, but if the Spanish model is what we are working from, then it doesn’t bode well. U.S. C of Commerce is estimating each green job will cost us 2.2 current jobs, and will cost $800,000 a year.

5. Finally, as far as I know, The Grid was not covered at all and it is the crux of our energy problem. We are literally a storm away from the entire grid collapsing. The grid is an antique and wasteful infrastructure, losing over 50% of the power generated. Add to that it is not a power on demand system; this means power plants have to constantly feed it. Kill the grid; create localized power and give initiatives to individuals to supply there own power. (like the tankless water heaters)

Bonus: And there is another Auto Bailout included in the bill.

[MorGrendel]

Thanks Rachel. I like conversation. :) And Dan, thank you too.

[Rachel]

A lot of what you said I didn't know about. Maybe its just my dreamy overidealistic head but I was hoping that companies would gain credits by working with people to be more green. Like with citywide roof top gardens or something like that. I pick that because its one I have done some reasearch on. If a whole city were to have roof top gardens the temperature would drop several degrees in the summer and homes would be better insulated in the winter. Since this would reduce the whole cost of heating and cooling that could be a credit because energy is saved theirfor poliution is not being made creating that energy, and that would not only create some credits but continue to do so for as long as the buildings stand. Also of course - plants reduce CO2. So if a poluting coporation buys citizens roof top gardens that cooporation could then get X credits yearlyfor 1.energy saved and 2.CO2 reduced.

I'm looking for the possibileties not the flaws -abundant flaws. Maybe the Senate will make some inprovements before proceeding.. We can hope.

[MorGrendel]

I too would like to see more innovation rather than regulation.

Also those roof top gardens can be intergrated into a grey water sistern easily.

[Thomas Fitzcharles]

Good Day, All.

Jeff you are not talking to a wall. I read all your rafs and rank, most I agree with. but don't have the time to do the research and reply to the ones I don't.

Sincerely

Thomas

[ahrimen]

the bigest problem i have is that Al Gore owns A carbon credit company,(the only one) and that a gov. burocrat has the power to determine what is the alowable carbon foot print for any given company based on its needs determined by him/her , that leaves a huge hole for abuse by gov. "your company didnt back so and so for office so we feel you foot print should be X" " need more? call Al Gore" (should be his new slogan) and like you said Jeff gov. entities are exempt.

on this carbon credit company Al owns one of the things he does is buy factoies in 3rd world countries that are "carbon polluters" and shut them down. 2 problems, 1) 3rd world countries need thoes jobs they have barly any already and you gona shut down the few they have. 2) worse, hes creating a market for high carbon polluting factories, so eventualy nations will catch on and start making them so he can buy them, its speculated that china has already sold him 4 that were made just to sell to him. (i will try to find th article i read it last year ) (its not so hard to belive if i ran china id do it) so we force companies to but carbon credits to maintain the level of production, forcing them to raise prices on the american people , whos money gets funneled to Al for his 3rd world factory company, so al and china end up with our money and pollution stays the same.

[MorGrendel]

Very interesting Dan. I thought the purchasing of the credits was wierd, and that would explain why no one was clear on HOW the purchasing is done. Grrr.

I wish they also worked on chemical pollution, that is why Russia ans India are considered so polluted. Though pollution would be easy to stop, if the gov't protected people's private property! (for you thomas)

I just found out the people in my nieghborhood because of a spike in cancer claims, tried to sue the airlines to get them to stop dumping fuel over thier houses before landing. They were told that the airlines never do it, but my nieghbor seemed pretty sure they do.

[ahrimen]

dumping fuel on your house is a huge violation of privae property rights i should say! how could they prove it?

[MorGrendel]

I don't know all the details, but I got the impression that the party line is "never admit to anything, intimidate anyone who says otherwise." I also got the impression that this is an older practice, when fuel was cheaper and there when there were more restrictions on landing wieght. One thing that stuck out in the conversation was that he said that they stopped hanging thier clothes on the line.