This cap and trade thing going through congress looks horrible.

[Mormon Red Death]

This article outlines the impact in taxes.

For instance, an analysis by House Ways and Means Committee Republicans shows that if traded emissions allowances translated to a cost of $85 per ton of carbon dioxide, each Californian could see their electricity bills climb $126 a year. That's small change compared to the Republicans' predictions for Wyoming, where they forecast each person's annual bill would jump by $7,249.

$604 a month in Wyoming? Who the hell can afford that electricity bill?

[landpoke]

I'll hold back my opinion on whether cap and trade or any other type of carbon curtailment is necessary and simply say that these people think they know what they're doing, but they don't.

[JohnnyLingo]

It's curious this hasn't gotten more discussion. I'd have thought we'd see certain posters mount a defense of the concept by now. Cap and trade looks like a terrible idea in the best of economic circumstances. Trying to establish it now is just insane, IMO.

[Mrs. Funk]

Does a projected hike that high account for apartment-dwellers and homeowners alike? If so, that's scary.

[I.J. Reilly]

Well, I'll stand up and rise to the defense a bit of the cap and trade program.

I'm not particularly familiar with the proposal going on in Congress, so I can't weigh in on its merits, bit I am at least in favor of the idea of a cap and trade program. What we have here is a case of negative externalities (for anyone who remembers econ 101). By imposing a limit and then opening up a market for the commodity (CO2 emissions) the negative externality gets internalized and those that wish to pollute beyond their allotted limit can. Eventually the cost of doing this will become too great to the business and they will then search out others solutions to their CO2 emmissions.

If the cost is just being passed on to the consumer and it becomes too high for them then they will search out alternative forms for their personal consumption (i.e. wood burning stoves, lower thermostats, more blankets, etc.). It will be along the lines of what we saw when gas hit $4 a gallon. Other alternatives were sought. Other car types were suddenly in demand.

In the end, I think it's a good thing. It internalizes a negative externality and, if done in the proper way, I can't see anything wrong with that.

Of course, I also believe that we should have a price floor on gas so as to be able to collect a higher tax on it that can be reinvested in alternative energy exploration and development, but I guess that's another conversation altogether.

[JohnnyLingo]

Bottom line, you're saying people need to be forced to seek out alternative energy sources. That people need to be forced to give money to the government for the development of these technologies.

To me, this is a major factor in deciding if one is liberal or conservative. Liberals believe the government must force people to be good, force them to be healthy, force them to invent and research, must take care of them in sickness and old age. It's nanny-stating, and I disagree with the premise.

If we are really, really serious about stopping CO2 emissions (and I'm not sold that we need to in the first place), we need to go nuclear. It's the best option we have. It's not the cleanest or the most efficient form of energy, but it is the best combination of those two factors.

Anyone who screams about carbon emissions or polluting yet resists the implementation of nuclear power in the U.S. is a living a pipe dream, IMO. Maybe one day we'll discover the perpetual motion machine or an engine that runs on sea water, but until that day comes, we need to do the best with what we have.

[landpoke]

Well, I'll stand up and rise to the defense a bit of the cap and trade program.

I'm not particularly familiar with the proposal going on in Congress, so I can't weigh in on its merits, bit I am at least in favor of the idea of a cap and trade program. What we have here is a case of negative externalities (for anyone who remembers econ 101). By imposing a limit and then opening up a market for the commodity (CO2 emissions) the negative externality gets internalized and those that wish to pollute beyond their allotted limit can. Eventually the cost of doing this will become too great to the business and they will then search out others solutions to their CO2 emmissions.

If the cost is just being passed on to the consumer and it becomes too high for them then they will search out alternative forms for their personal consumption (i.e. wood burning stoves, lower thermostats, more blankets, etc.). It will be along the lines of what we saw when gas hit $4 a gallon. Other alternatives were sought. Other car types were suddenly in demand.

In the end, I think it's a good thing. It internalizes a negative externality and, if done in the proper way, I can't see anything wrong with that.

Of course, I also believe that we should have a price floor on gas so as to be able to collect a higher tax on it that can be reinvested in alternative energy exploration and development, but I guess that's another conversation altogether.

Sure, makes sense. But why impose such a scheme on something that isn't a problem?

[I.J. Reilly]

Sure, makes sense. But why impose such a scheme on something that isn't a problem?

There in lies the problem. If you don't view CO2 emissions as bad for the environment then there is no need for it. It is no longer a negative externality and the added tax on it becomes unnecessary.

Personally, I see it as a problem. I do not suppose to know the extent of the whole problem and I don't even pretend to have read all the studies done. From my limited perspective (a non-scientific, passive observer) I see a problem. There are many smarter than I who would agree with me. There are a handful who don't. Better safe than sorry on this one, in my opinion.

[BlueHair]

Bottom line, you're saying people need to be forced to seek out alternative energy sources. That people need to be forced to give money to the government for the development of these technologies.

To me, this is a major factor in deciding if one is liberal or conservative. Liberals believe the government must force people to be good, force them to be healthy, force them to invent and research, must take care of them in sickness and old age. It's nanny-stating, and I disagree with the premise.

If we are really, really serious about stopping CO2 emissions (and I'm not sold that we need to in the first place), we need to go nuclear. It's the best option we have. It's not the cleanest or the most efficient form of energy, but it is the best combination of those two factors.

Anyone who screams about carbon emissions or polluting yet resists the implementation of nuclear power in the U.S. is a living a pipe dream, IMO. Maybe one day we'll discover the perpetual motion machine or an engine that runs on sea water, but until that day comes, we need to do the best with what we have.

I don't think liberals have cornered the market on forcing things on people. In my lifetime I haven't seen much difference in Republicans and Democrats. Where they spend the money might be a little different, but they both spend more than they have. Both parties claim to like small government, but each administration expands it a little more.

[BlueHair]

Sure, makes sense. But why impose such a scheme on something that isn't a problem?

I'm not too worried about global warming, but I am worried about air pollution. I like clean air.

[I.J. Reilly]

Bottom line, you're saying people need to be forced to seek out alternative energy sources. That people need to be forced to give money to the government for the development of these technologies.

To me, this is a major factor in deciding if one is liberal or conservative. Liberals believe the government must force people to be good, force them to be healthy, force them to invent and research, must take care of them in sickness and old age. It's nanny-stating, and I disagree with the premise.

If we are really, really serious about stopping CO2 emissions (and I'm not sold that we need to in the first place), we need to go nuclear. It's the best option we have. It's not the cleanest or the most efficient form of energy, but it is the best combination of those two factors.

Anyone who screams about carbon emissions or polluting yet resists the implementation of nuclear power in the U.S. is a living a pipe dream, IMO. Maybe one day we'll discover the perpetual motion machine or an engine that runs on sea water, but until that day comes, we need to do the best with what we have.

I didn't see this earlier or I would have responded but here is my response now.

I don't necessarily believe that it is "forcing" anyone. I see it in a much more economic sense of placing the cost of negative externalities where they belong. A negative externality has been discovered and there is a clear cost to what is happening. That cost is not being properly shouldered by those who are the cause of the cost. The cap and trade program merely sticks the cost where it rightly belongs.

And I love the nuclear option. This, in my opinion, is where the real strength of nuclear lies. The liberals that deny nuclear energy stand on very shaky ground. It is safe, much cleaner and more cost effective (when incorporating the negative externality costs) than just about any energy option out there. Heck, France runs about 70% of its energy off of nuclear and has been doing so since the 1970's. France! If France can do it safely and cost effectively then why can't we?

And, for another thing, those that want a real solution to our energy problem and then maintain a NIMBO policy, are idiots. The liberals and conservatives alike who publicly declare the need for other sources of energy but then go to the voting booth and vote them down because wouldn't be right for "their" community are hypocrites. And I can't stand that.

[I.J. Reilly]

I'm not too worried about global warming, but I am worried about air pollution. I like clean air.

And clean air is a more immediate concern, anyway. See the work of Arden Pope if you doubt the effect that manufacturing plants that use "dirty" energy sources can have on a community. It's you and your children we're talking about here that can really be affected, not some distant, far-off "generation" that is feeling the effects.

[I.J. Reilly]

I'm not too worried about global warming, but I am worried about air pollution. I like clean air.

My wife and I drove into the San Fernando valley a couple of years ago, and it literally had her in tears. She was broken up by the devastation wrecked on such a beautiful area. The smog was nearly the same as driving through an early morning fog in San Francisco. It made it impossible to see the beautiful mountains and valley that we were in, despite it being a cloudless day.

I can't imagine living in Beijing and never being able to see the blue sky. Heartbreaking.

[RobinFinderson]

The point goes to I.J. over Lingo. Nice to have you around I.J. It is always nice to see that CUF continues to attract some bright folks. Welcome aboard. (that goes to you too, Lingo. You're bright, but wrong about most things. It has to do with faulty assumptions.)