• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Cap n Trade

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
What is it about it that they say will make the environment cleaner?

I don't really get it.

Private property rights and no governmental environmental standards seem to be the best to me.

I'm certainly for a cleaner environment, but according to Harry Browne, the most polluted property is federal government property.

The government already makes us use more energy and dirtier energy than necessary when they established the AC standard a long time ago instead of no standard or the DC standard.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
The government already makes us use more energy and dirtier energy than necessary when they established the AC standard a long time ago instead of no standard or the DC standard.
Really? DC is more efficient than AC, huh?

How close do you live to the local nuclear power plant? I think the radiation may have damaged your brain.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
I'll bite.

Wow...this thread is so full of FAIL. Even ignoring the supposed topic of cap and trade, OP must realize that modern day industry and no environmental standards would be a DISASTEROUS combination. Rivers would catch on fire, cancer rates would be shooting through the roof, et cetera et cetera. It has already been shown in microcosm as situations like these lead the government to give environmental laws some teeth. As far as fed government property being the 'dirtiest', can you back this up? If true, then the government has some work to do. As far as the AC vs. DC standard, there are plenty of reasons that AC is now the standard - mainly due to transmission over longer distances. Thank Tesla for that one.

As far as cap and trade goes, it is merely a way to induce artificial incentives into the market for manufacturers not to pollute as much. It can be useful, but IMHO not in any way a substitute for strict environmental regulations.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,990
2
81
Really? DC is more efficient than AC, huh?
One can run higher current with DC than AC because DC is not influenced by inductance or capacitance voltage drops. While high voltage AC can be connected to a transformer without blowing up due to the high inductive impedance, a high DC voltage would probably explode the transformer because it doesn't see the inductive impedance.
 

leonlee

Golden Member
Oct 27, 2009
1,152
0
76
Cap and Trade is an policy where a government would institute a maximum level of emissions. Companies would have to abide by producing less than the maximum allowed or purchasing 'credits' from other, more efficient companies who produce fewer emissions. This would put a system-imposed fine on companies who produce more emissions while limiting the maximum amount produced to the same as on paper.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
Cap and Trade is a massive tax increase. Period.
Why are you repeating this again in the same thread? :confused;


From dictionary.com:

Tax
–noun
1.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,705
49
91
it's the financial headlock the eco-KOOKS want to inflict on society under the hoax of global warming. It will punitively price energy thus greatly raising the price of ALL goods and services.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,990
2
81
Cap and Trade is a massive tax increase. Period.
It's basically the same as existing EPA laws. You can emit X amount of sulfur dioxide before you need to pay the fine (or "pollution tax" if that makes you feel better).

The scam-e-ness of it all depends on where the limits are set. If the limits are realistic then it's a nice environmental regulation. If the limits are stupid low then yes it's just a tax scam.
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
It's basically the same as existing EPA laws. You can emit X amount of sulfur dioxide before you need to pay the fine (or "pollution tax" if that makes you feel better).

The scam-e-ness of it all depends on where the limits are set. If the limits are realistic then it's a nice environmental regulation. If the limits are stupid low then yes it's just a tax scam.
Except for the fact that there is PROOF that sulfur dioxide is bad where there isn't any with CO2.
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,992
96
91
Except for the fact that there is PROOF that sulfur dioxide is bad where there isn't any with CO2.
No proof that excessive amounts of CO2 is bad, huh? The scientific community tends to disagree very strongly with that.
 

nonlnear

Platinum Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,497
0
76
One can run higher current with DC than AC because DC is not influenced by inductance or capacitance voltage drops. While high voltage AC can be connected to a transformer without blowing up due to the high inductive impedance, a high DC voltage would probably explode the transformer because it doesn't see the inductive impedance.
Not to mention corrosion producing all kinds of nasty metallic salt dust on your plugs everywhere. Just the kind of stuff you want your kids inhaling and getting on their fingers...
 

Patranus

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2007
9,280
0
0
No proof that excessive amounts of CO2 is bad, huh? The scientific community tends to disagree very strongly with that.
The scientific community thought it would be a good idea to put MTBE in California's gas...

How did that work out?
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
No proof that excessive amounts of CO2 is bad, huh? The scientific community tends to disagree very strongly with that.

The "scientific" community stops being a trusted source of information when they start having an interest in and taking positions in politics and socioeconomic agenda.
 
Last edited:

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
The scientific community thought it would be a good idea to put MTBE in California's gas...

How did that work out?


See below


What is it about it that they say will make the environment cleaner?

I don't really get it
. Not a surprise.

Private property rights and no governmental environmental standards seem to be the best to me.

I'm certainly for a cleaner environment, but according to Harry Browne, the most polluted property is federal government property.

The government already makes us use more energy and dirtier energy than necessary when they established the AC standard a long time ago instead of no standard or the DC standard.
SO2 emissions have been reduced over 50% due to the Clean Air Act of 1990. Ever hear of acid rain, anymore? Acidity of rainwater has been reduced over 25% in some areas of the country. Here is the wiki on the Acid Rain Program.

(I'm thinking you probably weren't alive 20 years ago.)

Where I live (southern Appalachia) rainwater had become more acidic than lemon juice because of the SO2 emissions coming downwind from mid-west power plants. Not. Any. More.

The 'so-called costs' to the economy of reducing SO2 emissions (railed against by the Environment Deniers) is nothing in a country with a GDP of $14.5 trillion.

As a matter of fact, as successful as the program exists, the cost of the allowances was set too low and the standards (the Cap) for SO2 emissions reductions too high.

Emission sources were allowed to "bank" their allocations for future years.

That socialist EPA can manage carbon C&T without undue interference from Congress, who want to give away 80% of the allocation.

Distributing allowances for free could make a limit on carbon emissions more acceptable to the companies involved. The value of an individual allowance is represented by the price at which it can be sold. If allowances were auctioned, the federal government would receive virtually all of that value.

In contrast, if allowances were freely distributed, the majority of that value would go to the recipient firms--who would have higher profits as a result--and would ultimately benefit their shareholders.
Although giving away allowances could make a trading program more acceptable to the regulated entities, distributing allowances through an auction could also have benefits. The revenue raised from an auction could be used to cut existing taxes that cause distortions in the economy.
CBO: Who Gains and Who Pays Under Carbon-Allowance Trading?





--
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
Reducing SO2 didn't require we stop producing electricity. SO2 is an undesireable secondary polutant similar to nitrogen oxides or raw hydrocarbons in a car's exhaust. Secondary in that they have nothing to do with combustion and energy production but impurities in the fuel and improper combustion. Yeah we can clean that stuff up without any loss of performance or output capacity.

This is totally different. Now we are talking about pure CO2 and water vapor, the raw unavoidable constituent byproducts of pure 100% clean efficient perfect combustion. You can't reduce that without reducing performance, eg: force everyone to trade in their trucks for golf carts, smaller engines, decreasing the size of their TVs, houses, etc.

How convenient if you have a Marxist agenda.

Further supporting my opinion that "climage change" and "cap n trade" is a Marxist agenda, why is the US expected to carry the brunt of it because we use the most energy, while in places like India and China it's 100% acceptable to polute as much as you want, so as to be "fair" so impoverished brown people can have an advantage to "catch up" to richer nations?

Envy and fairness, that's all this is ever about.
 
Last edited:

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
It's like the guy across the street building a bigger stronger house.

First you complain hes making a mess every with all the mud for all the bricks, etc. So he cleans that up.

Then hes polluting the river or something, so he stops doing that.

Oh but you can't cut down trees, so he doesn't cut down trees, but continutes building his house.

Finally, "You're using too many bricks..." bullseye.
 

exdeath

Lifer
Jan 29, 2004
13,679
10
81
One can run higher current with DC than AC because DC is not influenced by inductance or capacitance voltage drops. While high voltage AC can be connected to a transformer without blowing up due to the high inductive impedance, a high DC voltage would probably explode the transformer because it doesn't see the inductive impedance.
High current DC is also susceptible to resistance and high transmission loss via heating, requires much larger and prohibitive conductors to handle the current, and much harder to down step to useable service levels. High voltage AC is more efficient to transmit than high current DC. Go study something this nifty little thing called "RMS power" and "Joule's Law" among others and learn why AC is superior to DC for long distance transmission.

Power loss is related to the square of the current, not voltage. Less lossy high voltage low current AC can be transmitted as high voltage long distances with minimal loss and then effortlessly stepped down in voltage to produce high currents as needed on site thanks to the properties of transformers and inductance.
 
Last edited:

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Reducing SO2 didn't require we stop producing electricity. SO2 is an undesireable secondary polutant ...

How convenient if you have a Marxist agenda.
Were you born an asshole, or did you grow into it?

My 'Marxist Agenda' requires me to ask you for any link (even a Con Wing Nut site) that backs your contention in any fashion.

The overwhelming majority of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emission reductions have come from power plants. Even a Maroon Like You knows this.





--
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,424
5,497
126
if it were practical to enforce my private property rights when your pollution enters upon my land, that would be a fine system to use. problem is it simply isn't practical. pollution can be diffuse or can take a very long time to reach my property, my damages are up in the air (is it the clean up cost? is it the health cost? how certain can the health cost be if the ill effects can't be known for decades or maybe are borne by the next generation rather than myself?). on top of that you'll have up to 50 different schemes for it on just state law remedies.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY