Will We See More of This?

[ballpeen]

The CBO says cap and trade will cost the average American household $175 a year, less for people on the lower end of the spectrum.

 

You actually believe that...that is scary.

 

 

[ballpeen]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html

 

 

The Cap and Tax Fiction

Democrats off-loading economics to pass climate change bill.

 

 

 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put cap-and-trade legislation on a forced march through the House, and the bill may get a full vote as early as Friday. It looks as if the Democrats will have to destroy the discipline of economics to get it done.

 

Despite House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's many payoffs to Members, rural and Blue Dog Democrats remain wary of voting for a bill that will impose crushing costs on their home-district businesses and consumers. The leadership's solution to this problem is to simply claim the bill defies the laws of economics.

 

Their gambit got a boost this week, when the Congressional Budget Office did an analysis of what has come to be known as the Waxman-Markey bill. According to the CBO, the climate legislation would cost the average household only $175 a year by 2020. Edward Markey, Mr. Waxman's co-author, instantly set to crowing that the cost of upending the entire energy economy would be no more than a postage stamp a day for the average household. Amazing. A closer look at the CBO analysis finds that it contains so many caveats as to render it useless.

[Review & Outlook] Associated Press

 

Henry Waxman

 

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

 

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

 

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

 

The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result.

 

When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035.

 

Note also that the CBO analysis is an average for the country as a whole. It doesn't take into account the fact that certain regions and populations will be more severely hit than others -- manufacturing states more than service states; coal producing states more than states that rely on hydro or natural gas. Low-income Americans, who devote more of their disposable income to energy, have more to lose than high-income families.

 

Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming. During the brief few days in which the bill was debated in the House Energy Committee, Republicans offered three amendments: one to suspend the program if gas hit $5 a gallon; one to suspend the program if electricity prices rose 10% over 2009; and one to suspend the program if unemployment rates hit 15%. Democrats defeated all of them.

 

The reality is that cost estimates for climate legislation are as unreliable as the models predicting climate change. What comes out of the computer is a function of what politicians type in. A better indicator might be what other countries are already experiencing. Britain's Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years.

 

Americans should know that those Members who vote for this climate bill are voting for what is likely to be the biggest tax in American history. Even Democrats can't repeal that reality.

...................................................................

 

 

Some of you people need to wake up.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, I don't know what this is supposed to prove about cap and trade, but at least we got somewhere.

 

If your point is that we have to make sure no one is gaming or cheating the system once it's in place (including us) I obviously wouldn't have any problem with that. It's pretty vital. It's also part of the reason why these negotiations are as difficult as they are necessary.

 

The point, Heck is that if I'm to accept your solution I must also accept the premise.

 

First that our "participation" will lead to real improvement.

 

Second the problem is really that dire and can be reversed if it was.

 

Third, that emerging nations will "follow suit" using the US as some kind of shining example of worldwide altruism.

 

Fourth that the total cost to US citizens will be that paltry 175 bucks a family.

(and if the others are true 175 bucks isn't going to change anybodys habits.)

 

And fifth, that US and world business aren't already stiving to make products that use less enerygy.

(I'd bet that US subsidies are keeping solar panel etc makers from actually making workable ones as quickly as free market would.)

There's profit to be made by selling a version of a Prius that's big powerful and safe.

It doesn't exist even in "enlightened" countries.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

And this is why we have elections. Because I think you're completely wrong. As always, what you think is wisdom is really do-nothingism, and everything you allege here is factually challenged.

 

I mean, you can model/forecast how much CO2 would be lowered under various plans, and people do and have. You can look at the projections for how much CO2 would be lowered for Waxman-Markey. Or you can pretend that improvement is impossible.

 

Then you simultaneously deny the problem exists and then suggest that if it does exist we're screwed, even though there are means to lower the emissions that are screwing us. It's an argument for doing nothing no matter what the consequences.

 

Your third example is just the usual grumbling. This isn't about altruism - it's about averting costly, certainly damaging, and potentially catastrophic climate change. And getting an international agreement is going to be tough, and the US obviously has to be a major player or no one else will sign on. For the most part the world is waiting on us, not the other way around.

 

The fourth is the estimate of the CBO. I don't know what your problem is with that. Except that if it's too low, it doesn't do anything, and if it's too high it's a huge tax burden. What do you expect to hear from people who are arguing that we shouldn't do anything?

 

The fifth is perhaps the dumbest - first of all, you just spent a few months bitching about people who are motivated by altruism on this issue, and now you're suggesting that altruism is already working. (On a problem you don't think exists, or if it does you don't want to do anything about.) But nobody would ever suggest (except you, apparently) that these types of changes alone are going to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because they don't account for the majority of emissions. The production of energy does.

 

And the idea that federal research subsidies slow the progress of development ...I don't know where you're getting that. Out of your ass, apparently. We do this with energy. We do it with military technology. We do it with space technology. We do it with health technology and disease research and drug development. The lists of technological advances that have been spurned on by public/private research funding are long and varied.

 

I'll give you a hint: we're celebrating the 40th anniversary of one of the bigger ones this week.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

And this is why we have elections. Because I think you're completely wrong. As always, what you think is wisdom is really do-nothingism, and everything you allege here is factually challenged.

 

Better to do nothing than something that won't do much if anything and costs a lot.

You could pray...

 

I mean, you can model/forecast how much CO2 would be lowered under various plans, and people do and have. You can look at the projections for how much CO2 would be lowered for Waxman-Markey. Or you can pretend that improvement is impossible.

 

Unlikely in the real world. And miniscule if at all.

 

Then you simultaneously deny the problem exists and then suggest that if it does exist we're screwed, even though there are means to lower the emissions that are screwing us. It's an argument for doing nothing no matter what the consequences.

 

Right Heck. The sky isn't falling.

 

Your third example is just the usual grumbling. This isn't about altruism - it's about averting costly, certainly damaging, and potentially catastrophic climate change. And getting an international agreement is going to be tough, and the US obviously has to be a major player or no one else will sign on. For the most part the world is waiting on us, not the other way around.

 

Uh right Heck.

Too bad they socialized themselves out of business. Now they want to pick our pockets. Whee.

 

The fourth is the estimate of the CBO. I don't know what your problem is with that. Except that if it's too low, it doesn't do anything, and if it's too high it's a huge tax burden. What do you expect to hear from people who are arguing that we shouldn't do anything?

 

I don't see any hands raised if I ask "who believes that $175.00 is the total cost. On either side.

You?

Yes or no?

 

The fifth is perhaps the dumbest - first of all, you just spent a few months bitching about people who are motivated by altruism on this issue, and now you're suggesting that altruism is already working.

 

That ain't altruism astute boy.

It's the natural progression of technology.

We don't ride horses now.

Things change.

 

The "altruism is your notion that developing nations will punish themselves because Obama says to.

 

(On a problem you don't think exists, or if it does you don't want to do anything about.) But nobody would ever suggest (except you, apparently) that these types of changes alone are going to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere because they don't account for the majority of emissions. The production of energy does.

 

So build some nukes and save the planet. You buy a Prius windmill and solar panel yet?

 

And the idea that federal research subsidies slow the progress of development ...I don't know where you're getting that. Out of your ass, apparently. We do this with energy. We do it with military technology. We do it with space technology. We do it with health technology and disease research and drug development. The lists of technological advances that have been spurned on by public/private research funding are long and varied.

 

Yeah I wish they'd subsidized 8 track tapes like they did Ethanol.

 

I'll give you a hint: we're celebrating the 40th anniversary of one of the bigger ones this week.=

 

Ironic that we showed the communists who did things better huh?

Of course that was before the "if you can't beat em, join em" days.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

How can I counter arguments against cap and trade like "the sky isn't falling" and "we don't ride horses anymore"? I wish someone had brought that up in the old acid rain days. Would have saved us all the trouble of reducing sulphur in the atmosphere.

 

And yes, $175 a household is the best estimate we have, and one I believe. And we won't even pay that for a couple years. I know you wanted to claim that this would kill the economy so it's a inconvenient number, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend it isn't real so you can keep claiming Poland and Finland are going to pick our pockets. I know! However will the United States compete with Egypt and Argentina once we've priced carbon emissions?

 

I mean, really. I know you're proud of yourself, but these are the same old arguments, the same old logical fallacies that you always trot out, and not one of them makes sense.

 

You even brought out the personal sacrifice one again! Love it.

 

What you haven't done is figure out a way to combat global warming, or give a good reason why we shouldn't.

 

But you did get to one part of the answer - building more nuclear power plants. There. Was that so hard?

[BrownIndian]

The way the world works is when things are good no one gives a crap and when things go wrong people point fingers.

 

 

I would not mind the CAP trade if it was implemented globally and not just in the US. We piping down our CO2 emits might be nice but if China and the rest are going to fart it away then it makes no sense. Unless we can find a better way to help companies use energy more efficiently, this just turns out to be a punishment for the American consumer.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I wouldn't want it without China and India (and Japan and Mexico and all the rest) either.

[smalls1129]

I wouldn't want it without China and India (and Japan and Mexico and all the rest) either.

 

 

But you're defending it when we could have it passed as early as Friday....and India just told Hillary no thanks. So we are going to get it before India and China. I am making an assumption here, but you seem to be all for passing this right away; and you say you don't want it without India or China...so what makes you so confident that India and China are going to sign up any time soon as to not make it just a burden on US (the American worker and consumer)?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Because the international agreement will be crafted in December. Just as everyone here is worried about us capping our emissions while India and China don't, everyone in the rest of the world is worried about doing it while the world's biggest polluter (China will soon take that title from us) doesn't, putting them at a disadvantage. Not passing carbon-pricing legislation before then tells the rest of the world we're not serious, which will make getting an agreement in Copenhagen even harder than it already is.

 

As for India, they're not against reducing their emissions. Their complaint is that we're responsible for much of the emissions that are currently causing the warming, not them, and that we should do more. Also that Waxman-Markey threatens them with export tariffs if they don't comply.

 

Here's what India's environmental minister said after meeting with Hillary:

 

“Both of us reiterated our commitment to arriving at an agreement at Copenhagen that takes note of the imperative of doing something quickly but also takes note of the special concerns of countries like India for continuing with their path of economic growth with the objective of poverty eradication,” Ramesh told reporters. “I think this has been a good beginning.”

 

This is how negotiations work. India's not exactly going to give up everything in the first meeting, and neither are we. But you agree on the goal and see what kind of accommodation you can come to by December.

 

International negotiators have been working hard on this for months/years. This is really, really complicated stuff, with hundreds of moving parts, involving 180 countries.

[smalls1129]

Here's what India's environmental minister said after meeting with Hillary:

 

“Both of us reiterated our commitment to arriving at an agreement at Copenhagen that takes note of the imperative of doing something quicklyeconomic growth with the objective of poverty eradication,” but also takes note of the special concerns of countries like India for continuing with their path of Ramesh told reporters. “I think this has been a good beginning.”

 

This is how negotiations work. India's not exactly going to give up everything in the first meeting, and neither are we. But you agree on the goal and see what kind of accommodation you can come to by December.

 

International negotiators have been working hard on this for months/years. This is really, really complicated stuff, with hundreds of moving parts, involving 180 countries.

 

 

The bold section of his quote is why I don't think there is anyway that India might give up a perceived advantage against other developed nations. In modern times India (the citizens) has had very few advantages against the rest of the developed world. So, there going to give up that edge just months after attaining it by signing up in December. I just don't see it...China may throw a bone and at least show up but I don't seem them signing onto anything either. The only time they gave a damn about pollution was for the Olympics and even then it took them what 2 years of not running their industry to even get it close to respectable? Just don't see it...and if there is going to be a huge international agreement in December why not just wait and sign on with everyone then...or even better pass this legislation with a cause that eliminates it as law if China and India don't sign on in December.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Like I said, China and India are already negotiating with the US and Europe on this. These are public statements from politicians. They've got to stick up for their own in front of the cameras just like our politicians do. That doesn't mean there is no give and take behind the scenes.

 

But you're right about the basic premise - they don't feel as responsible for the current warming, mostly because they aren't when compared to us. And they don't want to be held back as they grow. So how do you allow them to continue growing while getting them to lower their emissions?

 

That's the negotiation.

[smalls1129]

And by definition if there is a way to allow them to grow and cut then we should still get to play by the same rules and people might not be so concerned. The main concern is that as of yet, that alternative does not exist. Which is why I cannot see them handicapping themselves...especially if we already have.

[smalls1129]

For what it's worth I am not approaching this from the side of weighing whether or not cap and trade will work. More I am trying to think about it like a game of Risk...and if you're China and India this could be a huge tip in your favor which they may not want to give up.

[heckofajobbrownie]

There was a cartoon in the papers the other day that outlined the predicament you're talking about pretty well. I'll see if I can find it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Go here.

 

It's the cartoon from 7/11: "You first."

 

Maybe Alo knows how to post it in, but I don't.

[Guest Aloysius]

[Mr. T]

Layoff is the new Change!

How high will the unemployment rate go?

[calfoxwc]

I figure higher than 12% by the end of fall.

[Westside Steve]

How can I counter arguments against cap and trade like "the sky isn't falling" and "we don't ride horses anymore"?

You admit that is true and bicker about something else.

I wish someone had brought that up in the old acid rain days. Would have saved us all the trouble of reducing sulphur in the atmosphere.

 

That was a specifically amendable and regional porblem.

GW is (if it is as you say) worldwide, much more complicated due to many possible reasons for it and the solution is less clear.

 

And yes, $175 a household is the best estimate we have, and one I believe.

 

Fair enough.

You seem to be alone in that.

 

ps last night Obama said the CBO is full of shit in considering his health care plan. Agree or disagree?

 

And we won't even pay that for a couple years. I know you wanted to claim that this would kill the economy so it's a inconvenient number, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend it isn't real so you can keep claiming Poland and Finland are going to pick our pockets. I know!

 

Yes I wish the Steelers and Yankees would tax themselves to a point we're more competitive.

The US is doing it and others will take advantage. (as you'll admit to Smalls)

 

However will the United States compete with Egypt and Argentina once we've priced carbon emissions?

 

Open your eyes.

The dollar is propped up by oil.

Naturally when there is a better cheaper alternative the world will use it.

But...

 

I mean, really. I know you're proud of yourself, but these are the same old arguments, the same old logical fallacies that you always trot out, and not one of them makes sense.

 

Every one makes sense, they just anger you. And the same faux enlightened huffing and puffing in response. So?

 

You even brought out the personal sacrifice one again! Love it.

 

And it's still true hypocrite.

 

What you haven't done is figure out a way to combat global warming, or give a good reason why we shouldn't.

 

As I said there are laws of physics. I could demand we spend billions to improve human telekinesis. It still won't happen.

 

 

I did give a list of things that would actually cut the US rate of CO2 emissions but they were too drastic. Right? GW ain't that big a deal right?

 

But remember that even if your little tax does it's job the effect on the US output would be tiny, not affect the world output and considering the constantly changing tipping point, do nothing to avert the looming "catastrophe".

 

But you did get to one part of the answer - building more nuclear power plants. There. Was that so hard?

 

I've been bitching for those for years.

You Dems have fought them tooth and nail.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, you're like a goldfish in a bowl. By the time you swim around once it's like everything is new again.

 

We've gone over these arguments time and time again. It's not my fault that you can't see how useless they are, or that often you're making my point for me.

 

You are the king of the specious argument, always good enough for the dopes round the bar, but not much else.

[Westside Steve]

Steve, you're like a goldfish in a bowl. By the time you swim around once it's like everything is new again.

 

We've gone over these arguments time and time again. It's not my fault that you can't see how useless they are, or that often you're making my point for me.

 

You are the king of the specious argument, always good enough for the dopes round the bar, but not much else.

 

 

Awew shucks.

Yes we've gone through it many times.

Your response is as consistent as my un refuted arguments.

"Blah blah you're an idiot blah blah I know everything and that's why I don't need to refute it blah blah it'll just work, I just know it blah blah You're just a saloon singer blah..."

 

So what?

 

Let's try just one point.

 

You've lectured us all on how only making it painful to use carbon based energy will save the planet and that's why this tax is vital.

OK lets pretend that's true.

Then you tell us it'll cost us almost nothing.

OK fine.

So: how will that tiny inconvenience force energy hogs like, well, you to change their ways in a manner that will redirect the US economy and energy consumption and save humanity within the few years we have left?

 

(I mean I know Obama is a deity but how can both boasts be true?)

 

There's gotta be more to it than just your dislike of me, no?

 

 

WSS

[Mr. T]

watch this video

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, it's really quite simple. Because the price of carbon rises over time, and because a portion of the permits are auctioned off for the sole benefit of American workers, who will receive a dividend check. The cost to producers is greater than the cost to consumers.

 

In other words, money is being given back to taxpayers to lessen the impact on American households, especially ones on the lower/middle class end of the spectrum. The size of the credit also rises over time - the greater the price of carbon, the more money Americans will receive from the program.

 

Ex: As a single, self-employed guy, the CBO estimates that you'll get a rebate check of $161 in year one, which is 2012, and that this will rise 75% by the end of the decade.

 

There are also programs to assist energy workers who lose their jobs as a direct result of the transition. They're quite generous, actually. (Up to 156 weeks of benefits provided they forego unemployment insurance.)

 

So businesses will pass on the additional energy costs associated with cap and trade to the consumer, and after you factor in the credits consumers will receive, this averages out to $175 a household in the early years.

 

Again (and again and again) and despite what you think and continue to insist no matter what, cap and trade isn't focused on the greenhouse gas emissions of individual consumers like me so much, because that's not where the most CO2 (or methane, etc.) is emitted. It seeks to force consumers to change as well, of course, but cap and trade assumes that people will continue to consume energy, and lots of it. It seeks to change the type of energy they consume by providing economic incentives -- mainly to producers but also to consumers - to shift to clean energy production, and to spur the development of new technologies for clean energy production, and to make current and future technologies more cost effective when compared to carbon-based energy.

 

And none of this has anything to do with my frustration with you. It just is.

[calfoxwc]

MIT says it's more like $ 800.

 

But, the cap and trade affect is cumulative. Don't take just one area and calc it.

 

Take ALL areas, and combine them. Then you see how the economy is going to be

 

skidding into hyperinflation.

 

Then comes the crash.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yep, the MIT says $800.

 

Wait ...did Cal just add something to the discussion? Holy shit.

 

Anyway, the EPA says between $98 and $140 per household. $175 from the CBO. And $800 from the MIT study. I don't know if the MIT guys were scoring all of the same rebate programs or not. Their study was done before the CBO's.

 

Since you thought $175 was too little to change behavior, I'm sure you think $800 is too much. And what does it matter anyway if you don't think global warming is real and will also cost us lots of money.

 

Which is why I hope the Democrats ignore people like you and just pass the thing on their own.

[calfoxwc]

Heck, your dependence on cost calcs is troubling - to you.

 

IT's like you are a whining little kid in a candy store, that you

 

want candy, but you don't know if you like it or not, so you

 

want the one that Obama likes, but you won't pick.

 

You'll just cry and stomp your feet that you want candy.

 

Of course, some other people have to help pay for it, as usual.

[heckofajobbrownie]

You're right. We should just pluck our numbers out of thin air.

[Westside Steve]

Again (and again and again) and despite what you think and continue to insist no matter what, cap and trade isn't focused on the greenhouse gas emissions of individual consumers like me

 

No shit.

Hence the pain being passed onto the consumer for every piece of crap we buy.

C'mon Heck you aren't really blind are ya?

 

Or, of course, the Chinese will make it.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Steve, I'm not sure what you're saying there. I'm really not. But a good percentage of every tax on business is passed on to the consumer. Cap and trade would be no different. Also, the point of attaching a price to carbon emissions is attaching a price to carbon emissions. From what I can tell you've gone from arguing that the costs would kill the economy, to that the costs aren't big enough to matter, and now we're back to that they're going to cause a lot of pain. Well, we have estimates of how much pain there would be and it doesn't appear to be much, thanks in large part to how the bill is written.

 

But since we can't get away from your individual sacrifice idea, let's try this: say you sacrifice and buy a plug-in hybrid car. They use little or no gas and as a result emit much less or no CO2. But you still have to plug them into a wall socket to recharge the batteries every night. That uses electricity, which in this country is most likely generated by coal, but also natural gas, petroleum. Only about 13% currently comes from renewables. I think nuclear accounts for 17% or so. So 70% of the energy we produce is carbon-based.

 

Point being, if that car is still being recharged by electricity generated from carbon-based energy it's not going to have any impact on greenhouse gas emissions. You're just shifting the source of your emissions from your car to the smokestack.

 

Now, it does have other benefits, namely that it wouldn't require any imported oil, but it doesn't really change the greenhouse gas dynamic. Electricity generation accounts for the most greenhouse gas emissions, around 40%. Transportation is second, but individual Americans driving their cars is only a fraction of that.

 

So you just made one of these sacrifices you've been demanding and it didn't do a thing to reduce your personal contribution to global warming, at least from your car.

 

What we need to do to cut greenhouse emissions is to generate electricity more cleanly, and we need to start making that transition fairly quickly. That means more nuclear power. And that means making it alternative energy projects more economically feasible. And that means carbon pricing on an international scale.

 

And this is why you see the move toward plug-in hybrids or electric cars. Because if you can get to a future where you recharge that thing with mostly renewable energy sources it's not going to generate greenhouse gas emissions on either end, and it's not going to need any foreign sources of energy. It's all (or mostly all) going to be generated here in the US, and pollute next to nothing.

 

And that's why until we change how we generate power it doesn't matter much what kind of car you, me, or Al Gore drives.

 

Of course, because of all the batteries we're going to be dependent on lithium from South America, but that's a smaller problem.