This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

The Catastrophic Economic Impact of Cap and Trade

Cheeky Bastard's picture





 

Here on Zerohedge the main goal is to present the readers with facts that remain hidden under the radar of the traditional ( soon to be dead ) information providers. Also, we try to provide information which is useful to our readers, and from which our readers can learn something new.

So i decided to present to you a specialist view on the economic impact of Cap and Trade legislation. Based on scientific facts which are, at least, contingent in their nature, this legislature will not only impact every single part of your life, it will also limit your basic freedoms, and not only that; it will put a price on that which makes you a human being, which makes you a living organism. I will not give my personal opinion on this topic, but i think that the article which i will post here will give you a clear picture of what my opinion on this matter is.

 

 

Testimony before
The Energy and Commerce Committee
U.S House of Representatives

April 22, 2009


My name is David Kreutzer. I am the Senior Policy Analyst in Energy Economics and Climate Change at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation.

I want to thank the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for this opportunity to address you concerning the economic impacts of cap-and-trade policies.

 

What Is the Problem with Carbon Dioxide (CO2)?

Carbon dioxide is not a toxin, is not directly harmful to human health, and is not projected to become so--even without legislative or regulatory action. CO2 is fundamental to all known forms of life. Indeed, studies show that increased CO2 levels are beneficial for crop production.

Nevertheless, driven by concern that increasing levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) will lead to a warmer world and cause environmental damage, there have been calls to significantly restrict emissions of all greenhouse gasses, but especially CO2. Among the proposals to reduce CO2 levels are carbon taxes and cap and trade.

 

The Costs

The typical cap-and-trade proposal seeks to reduce CO2 emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050 where the comparison year is usually 2005. The Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation did an analysis of the costs of meeting the goals of the Lieberman-Warner bill, S. 2191, last spring. The report on this analysis is attached.

Our analytical models are not suited to making projections beyond 2030. Nevertheless, the economic impacts of this cap-and-trade program in just the first two decades were extraordinary. The estimated aggregate losses to Gross Domestic Product (GDP), adjusted for inflation, are $4.8 trillion. By 2029 the job losses in the manufacturing sector will be nearly 3 million. This is over and above the nearly one million manufacturing job losses that most economists predict will occur even in the absence of global-warming legislation.

The manufacturing job losses are shown in an attached chart taken from a study of an EPA mandated 70 percent cut in CO2. Also attached is a map showing the relative importance of manufacturing to a state's economy.

Some of the workers forced out of manufacturing will find employment in the service sector, but overall, the economy loses jobs. In some years, this overall job loss exceeds 800,000.

Note: Current law already has many provisions for curtailing CO2 emissions. They range from local renewable-portfolio mandates to increased nationwide Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to subsidies for ethanol production. While the reductions in CO2 emissions are included for the purposes of meeting the emissions targets, the considerable cost of these programs is not included in our analysis. This is because the costs are attributable to existing legislation and will occur even without additional laws or regulations. Of course, if they were included, job and GDP loss totals would be even higher.

 

Why Is It So Costly?

Eighty-five percent of our energy use today is based on CO2-emitting fossil fuels. The ability to switch to non-CO2-emitting energy sources over the next 20 years is limited and expensive. Therefore, significant cuts in CO2 emissions require significant cuts in energy use. The energy cuts, in turn, reduce economic activity, shrink GDP, and destroy jobs.

The cap-and-trade schemes, as well as more straight-forward carbon taxes, limit emissions by making energy sufficiently more expensive that they cut their energy use. In addition to the direct impact on consumers' budgets for electricity, gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas, these higher energy costs force cutbacks on the production side of the economy and lead to lower output, employment, and income.

It is important to note that these losses occur after consumers, workers, and businesses have adjusted as well as they can to the higher energy costs. After adjusting for inflation, household energy prices will rise 29 percent above the business as usual prices, even though consumers will have switched to smaller cars, moved into more energy efficient houses, and made greater use of public transit. The lost comfort, convenience, and satisfaction of making these changes are not included in our calculation of economic impacts, though the costs would be very real.

 

Green Stimulus?

Production drops even though firms will have adopted more energy efficient technologies and processes. To reiterate, the trillions of dollars of lost GDP and the hundreds of thousands of lost jobs occur even after homes and businesses have made the switch to greener methods. The hoped-for green-job gain is a mirage.

Attached is a copy of a page from a 1945 issue of Mechanix Illustrated. It shows a cyclist pedaling a jerry-built generator to power hair dryers in a Parisian beauty salon. Though not the sort of green job that is currently talked about, this human-powered generator illustrates why costly energy policies are not a stimulus.

A person on a bicycle generator would do very well to average 150 watts of output during a day. At this level, a modern-day cyclist/generator could produce electricity worth 10-15 cents per day at retail prices. With sufficient subsidies, people could be induced to power such generators and the proponents could then point to the "green" jobs that have been "created." What is not seen is the value of the cyclists' forgone output elsewhere. Even at minimum wage, the value of the labor is $52.40 per day. So each human-powered generator would shrink the economy by over $50 per day. This is not an economic stimulus.

Alternative energy schemes that require subsidies or that require protection from competing with conventional sources of power cannot be economic stimuli--their output is worth less than their inputs. An industry whose inputs cost more than its output is making the economy smaller and will necessarily reduce overall income.

 

The Tax

Implementing a cap-and-trade program to cut emissions by 70 percent creates a transfer within the United States that is equivalent to taxes on the order of $250 billion to $300 billion per year, just for the years 2012 to 2030. The combined transfer is about $5 trillion in just the first 20 years. This takes the purchasing power from the households and turns it over to the federal government or to whomever the government assigns the rights to the permits for emissions (allowances). This would be one of the largest taxes in the economy--almost twice as large as the highway use taxes.

Because the transfer, in this case, is similar in magnitude to the lost GDP, we need to be clear on the distinction. A cap-and-trade program with an emissions reduction profile similar to that of last year's Lieberman-Warner bill, will cause an aggregate $5 trillion of transfers after it destroys $4.8 trillion of national income (GDP).

In colloquial terms, the pie gets smaller by nearly $5 trillion and then a $5 trillion piece is cut out and redistributed.


Back-Door Protectionism

Cap-and-trade programs frequently include provisions to protect domestic industries from competition with firms in countries that have not adopted similarly costly mechanisms for reducing CO2. While the intent is certainly understandable, the provisions create the possibility of a protectionist wolf in global-warming clothes.

Putting these protectionist policies into operation is a bureaucratic nightmare. Every product from every country will need to be judged to determine the level of advantage it may have due to different carbon-cutting regimes. Since different countries can have different approaches and since different manufacturers can use different technologies and processes, assigning an offsetting CO2 tariff will necessarily involve arbitrary decisions. The potential for a trade war is very real.

 

The Gain

Analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that a 60 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 will reduce CO2 concentrations by only 25 ppm in 2095. This reduction would affect world temperatures by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C. In other words, it makes virtually no difference.

Conclusion

The Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation analyzed a proposal to cut CO2 emissions by 70 percent. Such a cut would have little impact on global temperatures. At best, the trade-off is trillions of dollars in lost income and hundreds of thousands of lost jobs versus a fraction of a degree change in average world temperature 85 years from now.

 

Call your congressman, and DEMAND of him to vote NO. Also, you can use this post as a thread where you can discuss Cap and Trade, Chicago Climate exchange and all other, topic related, issues. I will post the links for the graphs mentioned in the above article, as they are to big for me to post them here. 

 

Graphs

Manufacturing job losses 

State-by-state Manufacturing Intensity  

 

EDIT: here is a presentation given by Lord Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher. It is 1hr 35min long, but worth a watch.

 

Thank you for reading 

 

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 11/24/2009 - 21:12 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/30/2009 - 13:27 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Fri, 10/30/2009 - 00:19 | Link to Comment bjennings
bjennings's picture

In practice I'm firmly against cap 'n' trade.  In theory I'm not.  The simple fact is we must conserve the planet's resources and ultimately conservation goes counter to GDP growth.  Who has brainwashed us to think that GDP growth is a must to maintain a healthy quality of life.  Why is this so?  Would we cease to exist?

In my senior year we had 3.3B on the planet.  Today, 20 or so years later we have 6.5B on the planet.  At what point do we have too many people.  You know yeast in a bottle of fermenting wine has the greatest population explosion just before the sugar is depleted.  The quick die off of all the yeast follows.

 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 22:24 | Link to Comment time123
time123's picture

It all has to do with new taxes. It is a way to raise revenues.

time123

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 22:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 17:13 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 15:35 | Link to Comment Deficient Market
Deficient Market's picture

First let me start by saying that I've always appreceated your posts and comments CB, and I most often find myself strongly agreeing with them, and the issue of Cap-and-trade is also one that I agree with you. However, I wish people would distinguish between climate change and cap-and-trade. The two issues have absolutely nothing in common. Climate change is based on facts and requires action, while cap-and-trade is nothing more than a political/favoritism/campaign tool that uses climate change as an excuse. Seems that everyone that speaks out against cap-and-trade also tries to find cracks in the facts behind climate change resulting from CO2. Considering the amount of money out there that stands to be lost to cap and trade, there are plenty of pre-packaged statements available to use for this purpose. Unfortunately even Mr Kreutzer who otherwise sounds like a reasonable and educated person is either willingly or unwillingly succumbing to this need to try and discredit climate change in order to discredit cap-and-trade. His starting comment stands to lose a lot of his audience as it is one of the standard prepackaged statements in favor of increased CO2 levels based on them not being toxic and "good for plants". That is the easiest way to discredit oneself, as all I need to do is put that person in a room of pure oxygen (or even 10% higher than normal would suffice), which is also "non-toxic" and essential for our well-being, and we will see how that person prospers (there's limits to everything).

For anyone that still wants to go and say there are no facts to support the warming climate, here you go - This year the arctic ice sheet shrunk by 1/3rd more than the yearly norm that's been recorded since satelites were first used to measure it more than 3 decades ago. This is the also the first year in modern human history that both the northwest and northeast passage have been free of ice - Russian shipping companies are already making good use of this to avoid the Panama canal (wish I could short it). Therefore those that think that the same film crew that was used to fake the moon landing is now spreading images of drowning polar bears are wrong. The fact that for the first time ever we're starting to see new species of bears that are hybrids between polar bears and grizzlies speaks a lot for the timeframe since such an event was last seen.

For anyone that believes that we are in a cooling period because their local temperatures have decreased or the really cool summer we had this year in the US, here is a little lesson on physics: as CO2 gas becomes dissolved into our atomosphere, it increases it's density. Increased density means increased heat transmission (this is why water is a poor insulator, while vacuum is the opposite). This means that the global temperatures across the earth become more balanced - i.e. cooler towards the equator, warmer towards the poles - exactly what we are seeing. If you think to yourself "what's so bad about that?" you need to remember what keeps the majority of our weather system going - it is these very temperature differences that drive everything from the gulfstream to the colder oceans in the summers that then result in cloud formations and hence rain for those plants that will supposedly make farmers fat from increased CO2. When you start playing with the balance of these differences, whether it be by equalizing temperatures across the globe to increasing the global temperature by fractions of a degree (which has already occured over the past 50 years regardless of whether that was due to the solar cycle or not) you start messing up the balance of weather across the globe, and that is exactly what is happening right now. Adding another 0.1 to 0.2 degrees across the globe can have catastrophic consequences that will make Katrina look like a pimple on an elephant's ass.

Another effect of all these extra particles in the atmosphere is that they create more points for condensation. This means clouds will form and discharge faster than before - lots of rain near the coast lines, less rain inland. All those farmers in the breadbowl hoping to make an extra buck from their over-CO2'ed plants will find out that they kind of need water for that... Oh and guess what, they are already seeing more sunshine in recent years and keep drilling deeper wells to get the water they used to have at the surface. Sure, that last part is probably also in part due to their higher crop density, shorter lifecycle, etc, but we do not yet have the technology to measure the actual effect of less rain.

So in summary, if you happen to find any evidence that counters any of these (new laws of physics have been discovered before), then please post them. However don't post if it is just a statement that "so-and-so said the warming climate is not true, due to a reference statement from so-and-so saying it is not true". Such statements are all I've seen so far, and they are not helping the case against cap-and-trade any more than tin-foil wearers help in exposing real conspiracies.

Therefore please don't try to use climate change to argue against cap-and-trade, it is detrimental to the remainder of your arguments, which are otherwise very valid. There's enough wrong with the idea of cap-and-trade and the way it is being put together that you don't need to try and fit a square peg in a round hole.

Mon, 11/02/2009 - 19:21 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 17:47 | Link to Comment tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

thanks for sharing this as well.  props to you & the poster above for finding a middle way. 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 14:54 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 17:22 | Link to Comment tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

don't be sorry, it was quite brilliant actually.  never read a more cogent argument in favor of gaia and against this current charade.

thanks for sharing. 

fyi -- someone here shared this last week with me in reference to Henry George.  thought you'd might find it interesting as well:

www.ied.info

Fri, 10/30/2009 - 13:06 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 13:40 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 11:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 11:53 | Link to Comment Cheeky Bastard
Cheeky Bastard's picture

Based on scientific facts which are, at least, contingent in their nature, this legislature will not only impact every single part of your life, it will also limit your basic freedoms, and not only that; it will put a price on that which makes you a human being, which makes you a living organism

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 13:48 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 10:41 | Link to Comment ft65
ft65's picture

>> Eco-Nuts Out to Destroy Life As We Know It

Unfortunately we have done it to ourselves, and we are still in denial. The CO2 debate and climate change are just covers to force the masses back down to a far lower standard of living. The system of usury has collapsed, money has gravitated to the very few (as in the dark ages). It is time for us to go back to our place of servitude.

Our planet can not continue with exponential growth (including population) on a planet with finite resources. The oligarchs are now making their move. You have been duped, and it is far to late to do anything other than to start wars (as we are seeing!)

 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 11:48 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 15:01 | Link to Comment Apocalypse Now
Apocalypse Now's picture

Your avatar should be Mr. T.

Mr. T, if I may call you that-

Perhaps you can't read, most posts here stated we do dispute global temperatures are rising, why?  Because they are falling, and that seems logical to me to look at the data (after the NASA errors were taken out that accidentally made projected temperatures look like a hockey stick graph)

If you want to run around the block with your hair on fire shrieking that we're all going to die while most locations are experiencing record cold temperatures, be my guest - only I pity the fool that can be so manipulated into believing something that someone tells them while their own eyes show them something different (like an economic recovery).

Falling temperatures is inconvenient for the global warming propagandists (cycle with low sun spot activity), so they changed it from global warming to climate change - did you miss that memo, they had to change it because we are cooling?  You may be surprised to learn that the polar ice caps have been expanding - the ice is expanding not contracting, so no worries the polar bears will have someplace to land with all their swimming (assuming you are a climate expert now after watching Al Gore's horror flick).

Your data is wrong - you have to start with the facts on temperature and then from that premise come to a conclusion.  I am embarassed for you because frankly you are not informed on the facts.  Your argument is illogical and an appeal to emotion since you have no facts to support your poorly constructed argument.  Who benefits when we have cheap energy costs? We do - with wage deflation we don't need another tax, it shows up in the prices of products. 

This is just another banker tax (GS), you pay interest and taxes to the same entity and this group wants to grind the middle class down between inflation and high taxes - this is marxist/stalinist thinking.  You see, most people don't understand that the elites push socialism because it makes it easy for them to rule, with little funds any resistance or rebellion is futile - peasants have little political power.  Don't enable their stealing.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 12:38 | Link to Comment Cheeky Bastard
Cheeky Bastard's picture

Actually.....

Yes, i am a lobbyist for a Big Oil company and all your oxygen and oil ARE belong to us.

Get real man, I don't give a shit about the climate, or whether the temperatures rise or fall ( actually, historically, they are on the downfall, update your info with something else besides " The Inconvenient Truth " DVD ). The only thing this article is trying to do is to show the economic, social and political devastation IF the PROJECTIONS of the Climate change " science " become a legislative argumentation and foundation. The climate is a dynamic/stochastic system, not a determined set of future conditions.

 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 12:28 | Link to Comment chunkylover42
chunkylover42's picture

My only comment on your ad hominem attack on the messenger is that it's a straw man argument.  You don't know what Cheeky's background is or for whom (if anyone) he speaks.  So to insinuate otherwise makes you look silly.  Further, even if he was the president of Exxon, does that necessarily mean he's wrong?  This site is all about information, as opposed to your little trick of killing the messenger (I don't blame you for that, it's a widely used tactic to diminish the credibility of those with whom we disagree that deflects the discussion.  If your argument is strong enough to stand on it's own, say so, instead of smearing someone you don't know).  I strongly suggest you read the manifesto.

That aside, I think you are missing the point of the post.  As with any decision this large, we should not make iit n a vaccuum.  That is, we must consider the costs and benefits and weigh them in some fashion.  The speaker that Cheeky cited simply points out that based on the evidence we have in front of us, the costs are potentially enormous for very little benefit.

 

Cheeky, I know you don't need me to defend you, but I can't resist calling bullshit when I see it.  ;-)

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 10:31 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 11:49 | Link to Comment chunkylover42
chunkylover42's picture

If cap-n-trade is so bad for economies, what does one make of the European Union, which has been under a cap-n-trade system for years now.

I make an economy that has had persistently slower growth rates than the U.S., a lower standard of living, and structurally higher unemployment.  Further, mass transit is more feasible in the EU because of the higher density of the cities and smaller overall land area.

Nice argument, try again.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 09:52 | Link to Comment anynonmous
anynonmous's picture
Eco-Nuts Out to Destroy Life As We Know It

“You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/10/27/dan-gainor-eco-nuts-al-qaeda/

and for further reading (way down the rabbit hole)

http://www.350.org/understanding-350#1

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 09:24 | Link to Comment Margin Call
Margin Call's picture

For those who want to reduce government expenditures, how about starting with the billions fobbed off onto the fossil fuel industry in subsidies, tax breaks, the works? It frankly surprises me to see such a shill piece on ZH for one of the biggest "regulatory captors" of them all- the fossil energy industry.

"The ability to switch to non-CO2-emitting energy sources over the next 20 years is limited and expensive"

This one always gives me a good laugh. The logic driving this seems to be the following: "Fossil fuels will still dominate the mix in decades. Renewables won't be competitive. Therefore, we shouldn't invest in renewables". Self-fulfilling prophecies are great, aren't they? So is the ability to predict technological advances decades ahead. I wish I had it!

Sort of reminds of me a recent pronouncement by the Canadian Minister of the Oil Sands (oops, I mean Environment) which basically said: "we can't have a national emissions policy until there is an international emissions treaty. But we don't think there will be an agreement at the international level." Oh, and why would that be? Perhaps because Canada is actively trying to block one and doing nothing domestically!

Energy is not, and never has been, a "free" market. Our global energy mix is the result of decades of highly political decisions. So let's stop pretending that renewables are somehow the odd man out because they are subsidized.

Anyways, I digress. Apocalypse Now made some good points about natural gas a few comments prior- it should definitely start booting coal out of the electricity fuel mix and is a decent short-term alternative. But really, I'm surprised at the tone of the political right in the US regarding renewables- perhaps I'm crazy but I see a quite natural fit. Consider this:

If renewables really get going, they could provide the possibility of a re-democratization of infrastructure to the citizen/consumer level. If you get most of your electricity from panels on your OWN home, heating and cooling needs for a geo-exchange system under your OWN land, how is that not decreased dependence on bigger government and corporate control that so many here on ZH decry? How is being utterly dependent on distant utilities, massive pipeline infrastructures and the necessity of constant war on several continents consider a higher degree of "freedom" from government? Our dependence on massive, centralized energy infrastructure is the other side of the coin of our hopeless dependence on big finance- we are at the mercy of centralized power/control surviving only by making the next bill. Think the financial oligarchy in the US needs to be busted up? How about the energy oligarchy? They both feed on the same thing: an immense centralized scale in which citizens are little more than blind consumers who have no ability to provide for themselves (we need either money from a banker or energy from a huge power plant for our very survival).

I think one of the ultimate outcomes of the growth in decentralized, renewable energy will be an increase in personal and political freedom, and Al Gore and Goldman Sachs will have nothing to do with it. So cap and trade may be a political mess, but if it is even the first infant steps towards allowing the sort of world where energy production becomes a local, even individual building-level affair, then I'm all for it. 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 10:11 | Link to Comment tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

"If renewables really get going, they could provide the possibility of a re-democratization of infrastructure to the citizen/consumer level."

absolutely agreed.  but here's the rub:  all current subsidies given by the states are for 'grid-based' systems ONLY.   and that's not going to change anytime soon.

the current loophole is the feds are giving a 30% tax-based rebate on any solar-powered products, so if anyone wishes to go that route and start working on freeing themselves from the grid, should go buy a DiY kit and start experimenting.  once you get the basic system (battery, inverter, charge controller, etc), you can start building your own panels cheaply by using 'damaged' solar cells.

however, cap-&-trade is nothing but trying to control that evolution.  they see the future & are doing their darnedest to get their greasy grips around it before the general public truly understands the potential.

the only thing you can hope for in your scenario is that people start taking advantage of this en-masse and so much power is flowing through the grid in both directions that it fries.  then people will be forced to figure out that they can collect energy for themselves and will have the means to do it.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 09:17 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 08:56 | Link to Comment ft65
ft65's picture

Here in the UK, people are finally waking up to the fact that main stream media have been lying to us. The BBC now OPENLY contradicts itself on climate change. They see the can of worms being opened by those using the term "Climate Change Deniers" (the label “denier” always being reserved for despicable people who question any of WWII Jewish history.)

 

We just need to wait for a critical mass, before the lies about climate change are blown out of the water. At some stage the agenda will be switched to over population, the end of cheap energy (and the greed of a very few people). Unfortunately there are just not enough caves to go back to.

 

Here in the UK, as with the US, we have no manufacturing left. Manufacturing is not going to return until our wages are the same as China and India. In the mean time we are both reliant on foreign energy, the cost of which is about to sky-rocket. To misquote Captian Kirk. We are going boldly where no man has gone before. (at least in our collective memory).

 

Cap and Trade is DOA whether the bill is passed or not. 

 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 08:26 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 07:42 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 07:38 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 06:59 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 05:28 | Link to Comment Gordon_Gekko
Gordon_Gekko's picture

I think this cap-n-trade nonsense is the parting shot of a dying system. After the Greater Depression has run it's course, there won't be enough economic activity left for regular taxes much less nonsense like this. Our ruling oligarchs have completely lost it. They're now killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. BTW, I haven't done enough research yet to determine whether global warming is for real or not, but even if it is I'm pretty sure that this cap-n-trade business is pure horse-shit and another wealth transfer mechanism. Fear not ye cap-n-trade haters, the Greater Depression is coming to yer rescue!

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 05:21 | Link to Comment Lndmvr
Lndmvr's picture

Guess the Beatles were right. Best we can do is continually play Taxman for months before an election.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 05:15 | Link to Comment Apocalypse Now
Apocalypse Now's picture

OK, here are the facts and my thoughts:

  • We are entering an ice age, climate change is natural and caused by sunspot cycles
    • Greenland, ancient tree samples, and atoll clay sediment samples prove this
  • Gore will not debate anyone on the science - UK court found 9 movie items incorrect
    • He, Kenneth Lay (in prison Enron), and GS set up carbon credits, billions in profit
    • When asked about his conflict of interest - he stammered like Paulson hearing!
  • This is an agenda that is being pushed by major media sources - why address facts?
  • The controlled media is told what agenda to promote, total blackout on the science
  • The only man made climate change would be state sponsored use of HAARP
  • Successful levels of hysteria from media hype illustrates an easily manipulated public

The natural evolution of US energy is from solid (coal) to liquid (oil) to gas.  We need to transition to natural gas since we have a 200 year supply in the US and it is extremely cheap.  One of the problems is companies that have invested in infrastructure for making money on oil or coal sabotaging new developments or buying new technologies and idling them like the Carlyle group. 

With our own supply of energy and substituting natural gas for oil & coal where possible (need to convert machines) as well as solar, geo-thermal & wind turbine, we wouldn't need to wage war in the middle east (let's just be honest for a moment).  How important is energy - as important as mass and light, more energy provides more mass (stuff) in the equation. 

If instead this was a stealth tariff to support domestic manufacturing, stop real pollution, and an attempt to use the funds to help convert our infrastructure to convert oil usage to natural gas and alternatives, I would be more supportive.  However, I am skeptical and have concern that it will just line Al and GS pockets, create another tax, drive up costs, create a non-segregated gov slush fund for whatever (FDIC, SS, etc), and kill industry)

How about cutting government spending and using the savings to pay for the infrastructure to convert along with incentives?

 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 09:24 | Link to Comment ft65
ft65's picture

Renewable (solar, wind and wave) power would be totally insufficient for the way we use energy now. Nuclear is hellishly expensive, and what do we do with all those obsolete radioactive piles in 30 years time. How can we stop Iran and North Vietnam developing their nuclear industries, if we insist in building them. CO2 is the least of our problems, as is a warming planet (if true!).

The fact is we're f***ed, and what's worse we have an aging demographic to deal with in the next 20-50 years. Who is going to look after all the old folk?

But something is sure to come along and get us out of the s**t death is one thing that springs to mind!

 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 04:54 | Link to Comment Gordon_Gekko
Gordon_Gekko's picture

"...the traditional ( soon to be dead ) information providers."

Amen. NY Times firing like a 100 people is the single most piece of good news I have heard in a while.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 04:22 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 09:36 | Link to Comment ft65
ft65's picture

The science has not by any means been proved, in fact the numbers and computer models are closely guarded secrets. Just to disagree with "climate change" is professional suicide for any scientist, so they all keep their trap shut on the subject.

Cap and Trade, Global Warming, Climate Change is just a rouse to force us into servitude to the oligarchs, who will not have to change their lifestyle.

 

The best thing we can hope for is a painless mass extinction of the human race, as the European Bubonic Plague. This is what brought us into the modern world (after about a 30% reduction in population). Nothing else is going to fix the problems we are heading for, not even 100% tax! (and you can't get much more than that)  

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 03:48 | Link to Comment Pondmaster
Pondmaster's picture

What can one say but " we are SOOOOOOO screwed" . Tax the air we breath . Water tax next , coming to a legislative/ dictatorship  branch  near you . Uh.. that would be the US Congress and Senate . How long can American Idol junkies stand by and let this happen . Too late to change any of this crap?

If we want hell then hell's what we'll have . We are nearly there .

 

 

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 03:22 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 02:13 | Link to Comment nevket240
nevket240's picture

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/

 

scroll down to the article. Its th sun, not man

the Old marijuana marxist hippie trash are having a real dip with the CO2 scam.

Gore only wants to be a new energy Rockefeller.

regards

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 00:47 | Link to Comment Woodshedder
Woodshedder's picture

Thank you very much Cheeky.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 00:35 | Link to Comment delacroix
delacroix's picture

http://www.ewsews.com/cngprices.html   sorry I'm a novice, don't know how to make a link in blue    yet.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 01:29 | Link to Comment defender
defender's picture

You got it, it is just that links that you have already visited show up as grey.  I have had thought the same thing a couple of times.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 00:21 | Link to Comment delacroix
delacroix's picture

the sad part is this would make the trucks emission compliant, and then some.

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 00:19 | Link to Comment delacroix
delacroix's picture

engine continues to use 30% diesel 70% CNG. kits can be installed by any qualified mechanic. the rub is there was a law passed, making it very expensive for a commercial operation to purchase a license to do the conversions as a business. (big oil lobbying)

Thu, 10/29/2009 - 00:14 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Thu, 10/29/2009 - 00:10 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!