Reply With Quote
LOL @ not knowing "big biz" will pass costs on to consumers.
(In response to a poster claiming that Cap and Trade is going to tax us to ...I thought everyone might benefit from the discussion)
Why would the govt spend so readily to get us out of an economic depression, then tax to put us back into one? It doesnt happen like that. Forget what you read at the Valero.
The info you are getting is coming from wealthy powerful sources who are going to be forced to update operations with new cleaner equipment, industries who are still operating with factories and technologies from the 50's and 60's. Take a look at the oil spill...the response is the same one they rolled out in the eighties.
Big business doesnt want anything that will pull down their bottom line, and so they try and use scare tactics to rally support.
Cap and trade works like this:
1) everyone has an equal right to pollute up to a certain emissions cap.
2) dirty companies must clean up and upgrade equip and fixtures sufficient to come in under the cap, or pay the tax.
2.5) the cap slowly gets lowered, prompting companies to improve operations slowly over time
3) companies who have newer facilities have an advantage, because they pollute less, and if they come in under the cap, they have extra credits to sell on the carbon market (many already exist in the US). They can sell extra credits to companies who are over, and companies who are over can relenquish these credits back to the govt for a "pass" on their pollution overages.
4) Thus, as the cap is slowly lowered (by reducing credits distributed), companies using older equip will eventually find it necessary to upgrade operations, because less credits on the market means higher price to buy compliance. When the price of credits is greater than the price to bring your facility into the 21st century, you will upgrade or operate at a loss.
5) All the while, this simultaneously drives the new tech market, because companies will be actively be seeking a good deal on new cleaner tech.
Ask yourself this: who loses here? I'll tell you: big biz who wants to keep the status quo, and they give you all the scary numbers.
Again ask: would the gov tax us under the table at such a vulnerable time?
Or is it more likely that big biz has a huge stake in this battle, multi-million dollar retrofits, and potentially losing some/most/or all of their market share to those who embrace new technologies?
You know the old story...big biz has been buying and burying patents to "100 mpg carbs" for years to cover up the advances so they maintain their share of the market. Well, this shows 1. how wealthy/powerful these interests are, and 2. how resistant they are to change, and 3. how they do not have the interests of the American people in mind.
LOL @ not knowing "big biz" will pass costs on to consumers.
So let's not do anything! LOL
LOL @ starting a new thread on this
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...1&postcount=70
Attention
LOL let's do nothing!
A giant problem I have with the whole cap and trade concept is the fact that CO2 is invariably labeled as a pollutant (even though it's a part of the natural cycle...)
The fact that we live, means that we breathe, which means we pollute... in other words, breathing now needs to be taxed... it's a load of crap for politicians to even venture down this slope...
Did humans melt the Martian ice-caps? Or was it our sun? That's all the anthropomorphic climate change crowd needs to answer...
When they do, because they will, they leave the market open to those who can produce cheaper (read: cleaner). Thats what makes C&T a winner...it utilizes FREE MARKET THINKING to let big business dictate how it will react. Business will have the option of: 1) staying dirty and buying credits; 2) getting clean and selling their own credits; 3) getting the out of the market because they cant operate profitably with 20th century business plans.
This is going to be a huge issue in the coming year...it deserves it own thread. I happen to have a thourough understanding of how this works, and I dont appreciate the mindless re-hash of rhetoric and propoganda from sources that I despise. You seem to be very good at just that.
It's not really about the environment.
Mars has an entirely different atmosphere...funny enough, it has an atmosphere of over 95% carbon dioxide. Makes sense that Mars will feel an increase in solar activity before we should.
Solar activity has increased, and will increase, but our climate change is increasing at a much faster rate. In other words, the carbon is taking the solar energy and increasing our temp exponentially...take a look at the data.
Europe cannot try and create new markets in a vacuum. The new tech would never amount to anything if the market didn't expand globally. Without larger more important markets like the United States coming to the table with a real financial incentive to buy new cleaner technology, Europe alone cant succeed.
Your a fool if you dont understand that the current model is failing...oil based economies are flagging...we need to move on to newer cleaner sources...and you need to quit listening to "Ins utes" out of Houston Texas who are paid by the oil industry to promote the status quo, so that their share of the pie keeps rolling in. DONT BE SUCH A SHEEP!
Dude this is some seriously ed up information. I didn't even know you could find this bad. You have blown my mind here...I realize that I am dealing with someone who would rather confuse the issue with lies than reach any solution which might advance society to more sustainable practices and new sources to bring us out of recession. Are your pockets lined as well? Or are you just a conservative sheep spouting the company line?
A note to this cretin and the like: you truly cons ute the lowest rung on society's ladder...youre willing to compromise the health and safety of our population for a few measley dollars in your own pocket. You are the very thing that is leading this country into the ing ground, riding it like a beaten horse long after its given its last good breath, whiping it for every quivering step and shouting at those around you yelling at you to get off..."its fine!" you say, "look at my chart here!" But everyone knows, including you, that this horse will die in a short period of time. You just want to make sure THAT YOU AND YOUR PARTY ARE IN THE RIDER'S CROP WHEN OUR COUNTRY GOES IN THE ING DIRT. You should take a look in the mirror and realize you are a ing villian.
Parker2112,
Your last few posts are comedy gold.
Since you are new here:
DarrinS
and
Wild Cobra
Are two rather ardent climate change "deniers", and have at their disposal a host of data produced by other deniers. Their tactics, data, and method of arugment pretty much take on the charactoristics of conspiracy theorists who try to "prove" that 9-11 "was an inside job".
Invariably when one looks into their data it is rather misleading, and or downright dependent on logical fallacies, usually straight ad hominem and strawman (formal logical fallacies, search either term to see what they are)
The graph posted there is misleading because it shows merely a short term trend. This kind of cherry-picking data is a common theme in the denier movement, just as it is in the truther movement.
It makes me assign their arguments very little weight when it comes to analysing their claims.
Your cred is . And I just met you. It must take effort and tons of arrogance to be that transparent. Either that or your high school education failed you somehow...Parker2112,
Your last few posts are comedy gold.
I guess I just dont come across people this bent on lies and misinformation often enough to know they still try.
cap'n'trade is in principle a good idea and good motivation, but it's so complex, therefore impossible to regulate in practice, coupled with the bad faith of corporations and finally the casino gamesmen of Wall St, that it will have tons of unintended consequences, and very little of intended consequences.
I admit that this is a real possibility, but otherwise there is no way to push the elephant that is big business to the stream that is up-to-date equip and facilities and make them drink.
It is meant to be a kick in the ass, and while it does that, it also steers consumers away from excessive/expensive consumption. At this point it is a necessary thing.
tell us what it's 'really' about...
One can't completely dismiss their criticisms simply because they might have a financial incentive to make them.
Either a claim is valid on its face or it isn't.
Much of what they pointed out is rather valid when it comes to pointing out the drawbacks of such a system.
You can't make anything better, if you don't admit the problems.
Darrin et al, for their part won't admit the problems with their policy solutions such as unrestricted drilling, and failure to invest in renewables.
Such dishonesty might make them feel better, but it leads to bad solutions if you only consider one side of the ledger, and not the other.
RG, you lose your job or something? Everytime I log on to spurstak lately, you are killing it.
I would tend to agree for the most part, and oddly enough the link posted by Darrin pretty much oulined just that. You are in agreement with Darrin.
It is one of those "it sounds good on paper". It may be possible to tweak it a bit, but I have a feeling that oil depletion and economic stress will probably act to reduce CO2 emissions quite well enough, without such systems.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
