Cap and Trade. Good, bad or ugly?

[alfred russel]

But then assuming that US reductions are not offset by increases elsewhere is almost certainly false. The high level of the cost of oil in the middle of a major economic downturn should be a flashing neon sign that the historic balance of supply and demand is now tilted toward excess demand. There isn't any secret where that demand is coming from: countries such as China and India. Even if production of goods and services isn't outsourced to those countries because of cap and trade, why won't they will take advantage of a reduction in fossil fuel demand in the US to purchase more themselves (at the resulting lower cost)?

Doesn't this assume that China and India's leaders are just as shortsighted as America's? I find that hard to believe.

See my post before this one. But actually, of course they are every bit as shortsighted, and probably even moreso. Our government may be corrupt and incompetent, but that doesn't mean second and third world countries have better governments.

[alfred russel]

It seems to me that the argument is usually that it's up to the civilized world to suck it up and develop new technologies, something that we won't do unless some sort of a regulatory regime is in place to impose the need.  Once the technologies exist, they can be forced on the rest of the world.

If our current government was around in 1960 and Obama announced plans to go to the moon, this is how it would unfold:

Republicans would denounce it as big government and say it is best left to the private sector. While skeptical of the entire project, they would promise to block any "public option."

The Democrats would cave on the "public option," and reach out to Republicans by promoting growth of the aerospace industry through tax breaks to all aviation related industries. These tax breaks, to companies such as Boeing, would add billions to the price tag of the project, but still the project would fail to find more than a handful of Republican votes. Much of the money in the Democrats' plan would go to low interest loans to startup companies who had ideas for moon related technologies. There would also be significant funds used to provide grants and loans to help with tuition for engineering students.

Ten years later we would not be on the moon. But we would have a new industry of private companies funded by the grants. These companies wouldn't be profitable, and in many cases their contribution to the space program might be obscure. But each of them would be sending teams of lobbyists to Washington to make sure their "loan" funding kept coming. Much of the Board of Directors and management of these companies would consist of former Congressmen.

[Neil]

But then assuming that US reductions are not offset by increases elsewhere is almost certainly false. The high level of the cost of oil in the middle of a major economic downturn should be a flashing neon sign that the historic balance of supply and demand is now tilted toward excess demand. There isn't any secret where that demand is coming from: countries such as China and India. Even if production of goods and services isn't outsourced to those countries because of cap and trade, why won't they will take advantage of a reduction in fossil fuel demand in the US to purchase more themselves (at the resulting lower cost)?

Doesn't this assume that China and India's leaders are just as shortsighted as America's? I find that hard to believe.

India's certainly is.  It's harder to say with China.

Democracy generally reinforces short-sightedness.

[Faeelin]

Heh. I ran into some teabaggers today outside the post office, protesting health care rationing and cap and trade.

When I asked them why they were opposed to cap and trade, they looked around for a moment, then handed me a pamphlet covered "Al Gore, Covered in Gore."

[Hansmeister]

The main point of this legislation is for Congress to shake down businesses for contributions in order to be granted emmission permits.  It will crush small business if ever really implemented since they don't have the political leverage that big business has.  The bill is full of thousands of bizarre costly directives that don't really have anything to do with CO2 emmissions but create massive new costs.  None of these regulations were ever actually analyzed since nobody had read the bill prior to the vote.  Actually, there was no bill prior to the vote, only fragments of bills that were meshed together after the vote had already been taken.  Most of the carbon reductions are scheduled to be phased in after 2020 so it is dubious whether they will ever happen at all, particularly since the job losses if it were implemented would number in the millions.

And what would be the impact on global warming for the trillion of dollars spent and millions of jobs lost (if the cuts were ever implemented), even assuming that there was a link between CO2 emmissions and global warming (none of which has been detected to date)?

The globe would warm by 0.001 percent less than if we did nothing at all. 

[Neil]

I oppose cap-and-trade because it does nothing to eliminate the lower peoples.  Before we cap emissions, we must cap the population of the uncivilized continents.

[Neil]

even assuming that there was a link between CO2 emmissions and global warming (none of which has been detected to date)?

I was under the impression that was pretty much established.  The climate guys seem to have nailed that down.

[Hansmeister]

even assuming that there was a link between CO2 emmissions and global warming (none of which has been detected to date)?

I was under the impression that was pretty much established.  The climate guys seem to have nailed that down.

Nope, they have models that don't even remotely work and as far as establishing a link between the two they have only done in as far as adapting the link as a foregone conclusion, ruling out any other possibilities without examination, and then come up with fancyful excuses every time the weather refuses to act the way they've predicted.  There is zero evidence of either correlation or causation between the two, it is a pure pseudoscience, like eugenics was.

[DGuller]

We need a ruling here.  Does Godwin's law apply to eugenics?

[Hansmeister]

We need a ruling here.  Does Godwin's law apply to eugenics?

Eugenics was the principal foundation of the entire progressive movement, so it's kinda silly to try to play godwin's law with it.

[Neil]

even assuming that there was a link between CO2 emmissions and global warming (none of which has been detected to date)?

I was under the impression that was pretty much established.  The climate guys seem to have nailed that down.

Nope, they have models that don't even remotely work and as far as establishing a link between the two they have only done in as far as adapting the link as a foregone conclusion, ruling out any other possibilities without examination, and then come up with fancyful excuses every time the weather refuses to act the way they've predicted.  There is zero evidence of either correlation or causation between the two, it is a pure pseudoscience, like eugenics was.

The google machine seems to have beaten your claims.

[Neil]

We need a ruling here.  Does Godwin's law apply to eugenics?

No.

[Neil]

We need a ruling here.  Does Godwin's law apply to eugenics?

Eugenics was the principal foundation of the entire progressive movement

Not so much.  Eugenics didn't come around until rather late in the 19th century.  Gladstone had been Prime Minister for twenty years by then.

[DontSayBanana]

This seems like a lose-lose scenario, at least for the short-term:

In scenario one, where the credits are issued for net reductions over a given period, those companies that "don't really need to" have the high level emissions they do have every incentive to spike their emissions to peak levels right before the model takes effect, for maximum economic gain.

In scenario two, where the credits are given on a quantity basis for carbon-reducing measures, no company is at zero emissions or has the capital to make themselves look so on paper, so there's going to be no seller's market for the credits without widespread fraud: the vast majority of the credits would simply be hoarded until all reach the same ultimate destination: the regulatory enforcement officer. In that case, there's no free-market drive behind the measure, and it becomes just yet another expensive regulatory scheme.

[crazy canuck]

The google machine seems to have beaten your claims.

Hans appears to be using speaking notes circa 2003-4 when such denials were still being made.  We must assume that new speaking notes were never issued.