Comments on: Cap-and-trade datapoint of the day A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Les Horn Mon, 29 Jun 2009 00:19:32 +0000 $175 Don’t make me laugh.
Everything we purchase would increase in price.
And $40 credit to do what. Buy toilet paper?
CAP and TRADE is ENRON forced onto everyone.
CAP and TRADE is not about emissions it’s all about
the government creating a hugh slush fund for world government expansion.
CAP and TRADE places the entire U.S. economy on the shoulders of speculation, manipulation within the Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX)
CAp and TRADE is the most damaging plan for America changing our freedom in a very bad way.

By: jaz Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:46:38 +0000 You are a looter. And you obviously must be a member of the “lowest income quintile” to call this a “reasonable price”. Please do real research on global warming/climate change… meaning talk to scientists not bribed **I mean funded** by our government.

By: chris Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:07:42 +0000 that’s expensive, not sure if it would be effective?

By: jonathan Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:55:35 +0000 As I read the CBO report, it assumes the state of now with only a few references to how this might (should) encourage future efficiencies.

Putting politics aside, other countries – notably the UK next year, if I remember correctly – are instituting c&t so one question is whether not having it is a competitive advantage or disadvantage. If you look only at current costing, you get one answer but there is more because companies are driven by incentive – which is often a stick and not a carrot – to change.

My point is really pretty simple. We are torn by a desire to compete as a low-mid cost producer because that is our history. My belief is we’ve lost that battle, first at the low end and now in the middle. I would say we need to learn how to operate more efficiently given constraints, meaning we accept that we’re a relatively high cost producer and become better at that. Like Germany has as they’ve become the largest exporter with an economy much smaller than ours.

So my argument is that resisting constraint because it imposes cost ignores the importance of constraint as a shaping tool – and underestimates the ability of American companies to prosper. Our best companies impose constraints on themselves, as with GE’s internal mandate that they be 1 or 2 in every one of their competitive fields – and how that translated into demands for return on capital, etc.

I make the same argument with regard to health insurance; it’s becoming obvious that our system of dumping costs on the employees and trying to reduce benefits on a company-by-company basis (and historically on a region by region basis within the US) is making our companies less competitive overall. Their companies have a cost assurance that allows them to focus on investment, with the cost of health acting as a given constraint across the entire scope of their structure. One firm in our structure has an advantage over another firm in our structure and my belief is we need to make health a general constraint rather than a firm level one.

By: Peter in Ireland Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:49:27 +0000 1. Waxman-Markey made Very Simple:

Electricity generation (coal/gas) and transport (automobiles) cause 80% of emissions – a focus on them alone reaches first phase 2020 reductions without elaborate expensive cap and trade solutions.

All other industry is only brought on board in second phase reduction 2020 as judged needed there and then.
Win-win situation: energy changes (incl grid restructuring) to electricity and transport, benefit
Americans regardlless of emission reductions

Cost to consumer is kept down by long term loan finance, fed/state guaranteed to keep down interest rates, slow payback in consumer electricity bills or car cost.

Understanding cap and trade + why it is bad

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) costing

The assumption is that all energy efficiency legislation is GOOD for consumers.

Inefficient products need to have special advantages or noone would want them.
The fact is that efficiency regulation on a product sacrifices performance, construction and price features, and does not necessarily give the savings suggested anyway.

onwards regarding efficiency regulation effect on buildings, lightbulbs, cars, dishwashers and other products

By: AntonioSosa Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:14:59 +0000 As per a leaked memo from the Obama administration, cap and trade would reduce household income by more than $7,000 each and every year. vironment%20climate/article/25508/Econom ic_Studies_Support_Leaked_Memo.html

Obama’s ACES Act (cap and trade), however, will cost us much, much more than $7,000 per household! It will cost many of us our businesses. It will cost many of us our jobs. It will cost all of us our freedoms and our future.

No patriotic and informed American can support the ACES Act (cap and trade), based on the global warming scam.

Cap and Trade “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” said famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. It would significantly increase taxes and the cost of energy, forcing many companies to close, thus increasing unemployment, poverty and dependence.

Cap and trade represents huge taxes and cost increases, which will hurt mostly the poor and the middle class. Cap and trade will give dictatorial powers to Obama and will further enrich his billionaire friends (Gore, Soros, Goldman Sachs, Obama’s Chicago Climate Exchange friends, GE, the United Nations, etc.) — all at our expense and at the expense of our children and grandchildren.

Those brainwashed to the point of wanting to destroy the economy to “prevent global warming” are behaving like the most primitive human beings who were duped into believing that human sacrifices would ensure them good weather. Human beings don’t have the power to control climate! And killing the economy will not help the environment. Poor countries can’t protect the environment. Just look at Haiti!

By: sunsetbeachguy Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:23:58 +0000 one mention of AGW and wingnutters swarm.


By: Marc Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:56:39 +0000 At such a low cost, I would assume the reduction would be insignificant. The switching costs to a new cleaner energy source would be much higher.

But go ahead and feel good about it, that is what the bill was designed to do.

By: NE1 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:31:45 +0000 According to quick googling, we import 3.5B bbl, at a cost of ~$70 each, for $1/4 trillion cost. What kind of dent are they predicting for the growth of demand, and can they really isolate this to energy usage or isn’t it really growth in general?

By: The Rage Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:59:53 +0000 Seriously, are you and or people like you clueless or just can’t think past step one? If auctioning off 17% of the credits ends up costing $175 a household why would the net benefit be better if we sold more. I’m thinking the cost passed on would be higher. Probably in proportion to the 17%. If not, then why not just raise the cost to a million a ton, that would cut down usage a lot, and I’m sure not hurt the econ. Course this is assuming that businesses don’t just move to “emerging” econs like India. Don’t say they won’t because that’s the industry I work in. Once I can’t help a co save any more money here we help move them overseas. And don’t criticize that either. Not too many of them UAW jobs left you dems like to say are good for us, or maybe you think if we just raised wages for more jobs only good things would happen and we’d keep more jobs here.

Do you think or just mumble stuff like “UAW jobs? No more than “Repubs” sold the us auto companies down the drain by giving illegal anti-free market subsidies to the foreign competiters so they could try and kill it.

You are the filth of America and need purged.