Only 24% Voters Know Cap And Trade Is About Enviroment

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

How is "upgrading" existing fossil plants going to reduce costs to the consumer? Instead of spending a billion dollars of capital on new capacity, they will instead be forced to spend it on experimental technology retrofitting current plants, which adds no value or productivity. It is a HUGE economic loss. This is the classic broken window fallacy. It's akin to claiming that a hurricane which destroys thousands of homes is a boon to the economy because it creates new construction jobs.

You are correct though in your assessment that this is just a government ploy to raise taxes and offset the blame.

 

[TheDoc9]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

Once prices go up they will NEVER come back down.

I'm sure this will pass, with all of the unbelievable things going on passing this just makes sense now.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

How is "upgrading" existing fossil plants going to reduce costs to the consumer? Instead of spending a billion dollars of capital on new capacity, they will instead be forced to spend it on experimental technology retrofitting current plants, which adds no value or productivity. It is a HUGE economic loss. This is the classic broken window fallacy. It's akin to claiming that a hurricane which destroys thousands of homes is a boon to the economy because it creates new construction jobs.

You are correct though in your assessment that this is just a government ploy to raise taxes and offset the blame.

you apparently don't understand how cap and trade works, so allow me to inform you.

basically, cap and trade creates a market for the right to pollute; a pollution permit if you will. These are sold by the government.

Since this is a market, and all the players are free to choice their best combination of inputs, which now includes 'pollution permits' they will make the best (or better, to be more accurate) choices in regards to their inputs. That means that firms will minimize their costs, which means they will pick the most efficient methods to reduce pollution. Firms that cannot efficiently reduce pollution can buy permits from those who can.

You asked how upgrading facilities will reduce costs borne by the consumer. I did not say that. Initially costs borne by the consumer will be expensive because the demand for permits will be high, since it takes time for plants to be upgraded and the market to achieve equilibrium, which will bring down costs. With potential gains higher, more R&D will be expended in the area leading to new technologies, and further economies of scale should bring done costs as well. There is no broken window fallacy here.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: TheDoc9
Once prices go up they will NEVER come back down.

That's why we're still paying $4 per gallon for gas!

 

[Xellos2099]

I never see a sale tax decrease.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here is something to think about...

Cap & trade is going to have a huge effect on electric companies.

However, those who have a lot of nuclear plants, such as Duke power, will have a HUGE advantage in the future since they are low polluters.

This could lead to large regional disparity when it comes to energy costs. Areas of the country with no nukes will end up paying more for their energy via C&T but those with lots of nukes will pay less.

This could have a major impact on long term economic growth in this country.

Charlotte NC has two nuke plants near it. That could make it an attractive place to relocate businesses that use lots of energy because of lower energy costs. While a place with lots of coal plants could lose businesses as they flee higher energy taxes due to C&T.

People should be aware of long term economics effects such as the above before they get behind something like C&T.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Here is something to think about...

Cap & trade is going to have a huge effect on electric companies.

However, those who have a lot of nuclear plants, such as Duke power, will have a HUGE advantage in the future since they are low polluters.

This could lead to large regional disparity when it comes to energy costs. Areas of the country with no nukes will end up paying more for their energy via C&T but those with lots of nukes will pay less.

This could have a major impact on long term economic growth in this country.

Charlotte NC has two nuke plants near it. That could make it an attractive place to relocate businesses that use lots of energy because of lower energy costs. While a place with lots of coal plants could lose businesses as they flee higher energy taxes due to C&T.

People should be aware of long term economics effects such as the above before they get behind something like C&T.

So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

 

[yllus]

Environment? I thought it was about an international hat exchange!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: feralkid
So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

Who is going to pay for these new plants??

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid
So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

Who is going to pay for these new plants??

probably the people who are going to make money off them.



the entire concept of cap and trade is to mitigate and minimize the negative effects of pollution; i think a similar plan was used to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions and has been used to good effect in other countries.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid
So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

Who is going to pay for these new plants??

Heavily polluting plants that are sick of paying carbon taxes. Duh.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

How is "upgrading" existing fossil plants going to reduce costs to the consumer? Instead of spending a billion dollars of capital on new capacity, they will instead be forced to spend it on experimental technology retrofitting current plants, which adds no value or productivity. It is a HUGE economic loss. This is the classic broken window fallacy. It's akin to claiming that a hurricane which destroys thousands of homes is a boon to the economy because it creates new construction jobs.

You are correct though in your assessment that this is just a government ploy to raise taxes and offset the blame.

you apparently don't understand how cap and trade works, so allow me to inform you.

basically, cap and trade creates a market for the right to pollute; a pollution permit if you will. These are sold by the government.

Since this is a market, and all the players are free to choice their best combination of inputs, which now includes 'pollution permits' they will make the best (or better, to be more accurate) choices in regards to their inputs. That means that firms will minimize their costs, which means they will pick the most efficient methods to reduce pollution. Firms that cannot efficiently reduce pollution can buy permits from those who can.

You asked how upgrading facilities will reduce costs borne by the consumer. I did not say that. Initially costs borne by the consumer will be expensive because the demand for permits will be high, since it takes time for plants to be upgraded and the market to achieve equilibrium, which will bring down costs. With potential gains higher, more R&D will be expended in the area leading to new technologies, and further economies of scale should bring done costs as well. There is no broken window fallacy here.

Let me clarify. C&T gives energy companies the choice of spend $1 billion extra to buy credits or $750 million extra to reduce CO2. Both options lead to vastly increased energy costs. Your assertion is that the latter option is a good idea because it is not as bad as the first option. This is retarded.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid
So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

Who is going to pay for these new plants??

Heavily polluting plants that are sick of paying carbon taxes. Duh.

No, wrong. YOU and I are going to pay for all that stuff, that's who. Your power bill will go up by 50%, and you'd better believe I'm telling my congressional reps that I'm holding them responsible for that price increase.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid
So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

Who is going to pay for these new plants??

Heavily polluting plants that are sick of paying carbon taxes. Duh.

And where do they get the money???

This is not a vacuum. The money has to come from some place and that some place is the end users. You and me will end up paying more for stuff made at these plants.

Or, more likely, we will buy this stuff from China or India where they don't have this pollution tax and thus are able to make the items cheaper.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid
So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

Who is going to pay for these new plants??

Heavily polluting plants that are sick of paying carbon taxes. Duh.

No, wrong. YOU and I are going to pay for all that stuff, that's who. Your power bill will go up by 50%, and you'd better believe I'm telling my congressional reps that I'm holding them responsible for that price increase.

Of course they pass costs on to their customers. What are you some kind of Communist?

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

How is "upgrading" existing fossil plants going to reduce costs to the consumer? Instead of spending a billion dollars of capital on new capacity, they will instead be forced to spend it on experimental technology retrofitting current plants, which adds no value or productivity. It is a HUGE economic loss. This is the classic broken window fallacy. It's akin to claiming that a hurricane which destroys thousands of homes is a boon to the economy because it creates new construction jobs.

You are correct though in your assessment that this is just a government ploy to raise taxes and offset the blame.

you apparently don't understand how cap and trade works, so allow me to inform you.

basically, cap and trade creates a market for the right to pollute; a pollution permit if you will. These are sold by the government.

Since this is a market, and all the players are free to choice their best combination of inputs, which now includes 'pollution permits' they will make the best (or better, to be more accurate) choices in regards to their inputs. That means that firms will minimize their costs, which means they will pick the most efficient methods to reduce pollution. Firms that cannot efficiently reduce pollution can buy permits from those who can.

You asked how upgrading facilities will reduce costs borne by the consumer. I did not say that. Initially costs borne by the consumer will be expensive because the demand for permits will be high, since it takes time for plants to be upgraded and the market to achieve equilibrium, which will bring down costs. With potential gains higher, more R&D will be expended in the area leading to new technologies, and further economies of scale should bring done costs as well. There is no broken window fallacy here.

Let me clarify. C&T gives energy companies the choice of spend $1 billion extra to buy credits or $750 million extra to reduce CO2. Both options lead to vastly increased energy costs. Your assertion is that the latter option is a good idea because it is not as bad as the first option. This is retarded.

I highlighted the bolded part of your statement that is wrong. The "equilibrium" value that costs will come down to will still be much higher then they are without C&T.

(aside-CO2 is NOT pollution by any respect. At worse it is a greenhouse contributing gas.)

The "creating the market for the right to pollute" is the broken window fallacy part. In the parable of the broken window, the glass maker claimed that the boy created a market for new windows by breaking the store window. This is exactly analogous to the government enacting a new tax on current industries, even if there is a way to partially avoid the tax. In any event, the total wealth of the economic system is decreased and everyone is worse off.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

How is "upgrading" existing fossil plants going to reduce costs to the consumer? Instead of spending a billion dollars of capital on new capacity, they will instead be forced to spend it on experimental technology retrofitting current plants, which adds no value or productivity. It is a HUGE economic loss. This is the classic broken window fallacy. It's akin to claiming that a hurricane which destroys thousands of homes is a boon to the economy because it creates new construction jobs.

You are correct though in your assessment that this is just a government ploy to raise taxes and offset the blame.

you apparently don't understand how cap and trade works, so allow me to inform you.

basically, cap and trade creates a market for the right to pollute; a pollution permit if you will. These are sold by the government.

Since this is a market, and all the players are free to choice their best combination of inputs, which now includes 'pollution permits' they will make the best (or better, to be more accurate) choices in regards to their inputs. That means that firms will minimize their costs, which means they will pick the most efficient methods to reduce pollution. Firms that cannot efficiently reduce pollution can buy permits from those who can.

You asked how upgrading facilities will reduce costs borne by the consumer. I did not say that. Initially costs borne by the consumer will be expensive because the demand for permits will be high, since it takes time for plants to be upgraded and the market to achieve equilibrium, which will bring down costs. With potential gains higher, more R&D will be expended in the area leading to new technologies, and further economies of scale should bring done costs as well. There is no broken window fallacy here.

The biggest losers in this is the coal and oil industries. The biggest gainers will be the green energy crowd. You can only clean coal so much so expect coal plants to constantly be buying up these permits and passing the costs onto the consumer. Until the left gets their head out of their ass on Nuclear energy you just created a new pollution tax middle America gets to pay.

On top of that heavy industry will move to Mexico at faster than normal rates. So middle america not only gets taxed but loses a job.

Now pat yourself on the back for doing a good job.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid
So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

Who is going to pay for these new plants??

Heavily polluting plants that are sick of paying carbon taxes. Duh.

And where do they get the money???

This is not a vacuum. The money has to come from some place and that some place is the end users. You and me will end up paying more for stuff made at these plants.

Or, more likely, we will buy this stuff from China or India where they don't have this pollution tax and thus are able to make the items cheaper.

Or they idle the plants and move to Mexico like so much other industry in this country over the past 40 years. People talk about cost of labor as the major reason for moving. One of the big reasons is cost of envrionmental reform. It is hell a cheaper to run a plant in China or Mexico due to lower envrionment regulation. This Cap and Trade idea only makes it worse.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: feralkid
So then regions that wanted to keep a high industrial tax base would then build generating plants with low/zero emissions.

I think that's the whole bloody point.

Who is going to pay for these new plants??

Heavily polluting plants that are sick of paying carbon taxes. Duh.

And where do they get the money???

This is not a vacuum. The money has to come from some place and that some place is the end users. You and me will end up paying more for stuff made at these plants.

Or, more likely, we will buy this stuff from China or India where they don't have this pollution tax and thus are able to make the items cheaper.

ding ding ding

There is already a massive wage disparity between the US and developing countries, and an almost equally massive disparity in costs to comply with environmental regulations. Widening that gap without introducing some kind of tarriffs to offset the advantage of looser environmental regulations is just going to make them an even more attractive location for manufacturing. If the west wants to continue with the whole go green movement, they are going to have to roll back some free trade principles, otherwise we'll be going green by winding down our entire economies and shutting the lights out.

 

[trooper11]

I can understand the overarching goal here to reduce one for of 'pollution', but all of these specifics are mind boggling.


From reading about this, it seems that an average family is going to be paying a large increase in the cost of living becuase of this, for at least a couple of years. then after that, it 'might' drop back to where it is today.


Everyday this goes forward is another day I scratch my head wondering why were arent drilling for our own oil while we develop these alternative fuels. At least then we wouldnt have to shouldar the burden of r&d costs through taxes or increased energy costs. Going green doesnt have to mean going broke, but sometimes it seems like our government doesnt care.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

How is "upgrading" existing fossil plants going to reduce costs to the consumer? Instead of spending a billion dollars of capital on new capacity, they will instead be forced to spend it on experimental technology retrofitting current plants, which adds no value or productivity. It is a HUGE economic loss. This is the classic broken window fallacy. It's akin to claiming that a hurricane which destroys thousands of homes is a boon to the economy because it creates new construction jobs.

You are correct though in your assessment that this is just a government ploy to raise taxes and offset the blame.

you apparently don't understand how cap and trade works, so allow me to inform you.

basically, cap and trade creates a market for the right to pollute; a pollution permit if you will. These are sold by the government.

Since this is a market, and all the players are free to choice their best combination of inputs, which now includes 'pollution permits' they will make the best (or better, to be more accurate) choices in regards to their inputs. That means that firms will minimize their costs, which means they will pick the most efficient methods to reduce pollution. Firms that cannot efficiently reduce pollution can buy permits from those who can.

You asked how upgrading facilities will reduce costs borne by the consumer. I did not say that. Initially costs borne by the consumer will be expensive because the demand for permits will be high, since it takes time for plants to be upgraded and the market to achieve equilibrium, which will bring down costs. With potential gains higher, more R&D will be expended in the area leading to new technologies, and further economies of scale should bring done costs as well. There is no broken window fallacy here.

Let me clarify. C&T gives energy companies the choice of spend $1 billion extra to buy credits or $750 million extra to reduce CO2. Both options lead to vastly increased energy costs. Your assertion is that the latter option is a good idea because it is not as bad as the first option. This is retarded.

what method would you use to reduce pollution?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
If cap & tax is passed, there WILL be massive rate increases. And the same politicians that passed C&T will blame the greedy corporations for raising poor people's electricity bills.

i could see energy costs going up about 20-40% in the short term, but that should go down over a couple years as plants upgrade. On the other hand, it will help the government not have to raise taxes. If you want to think of it this way, this is just changing the way you get taxed, but with an intermediate step that helps reduce pollution with very minimal economic losses.

How is "upgrading" existing fossil plants going to reduce costs to the consumer? Instead of spending a billion dollars of capital on new capacity, they will instead be forced to spend it on experimental technology retrofitting current plants, which adds no value or productivity. It is a HUGE economic loss. This is the classic broken window fallacy. It's akin to claiming that a hurricane which destroys thousands of homes is a boon to the economy because it creates new construction jobs.

You are correct though in your assessment that this is just a government ploy to raise taxes and offset the blame.

you apparently don't understand how cap and trade works, so allow me to inform you.

basically, cap and trade creates a market for the right to pollute; a pollution permit if you will. These are sold by the government.

Since this is a market, and all the players are free to choice their best combination of inputs, which now includes 'pollution permits' they will make the best (or better, to be more accurate) choices in regards to their inputs. That means that firms will minimize their costs, which means they will pick the most efficient methods to reduce pollution. Firms that cannot efficiently reduce pollution can buy permits from those who can.

You asked how upgrading facilities will reduce costs borne by the consumer. I did not say that. Initially costs borne by the consumer will be expensive because the demand for permits will be high, since it takes time for plants to be upgraded and the market to achieve equilibrium, which will bring down costs. With potential gains higher, more R&D will be expended in the area leading to new technologies, and further economies of scale should bring done costs as well. There is no broken window fallacy here.

Let me clarify. C&T gives energy companies the choice of spend $1 billion extra to buy credits or $750 million extra to reduce CO2. Both options lead to vastly increased energy costs. Your assertion is that the latter option is a good idea because it is not as bad as the first option. This is retarded.

I highlighted the bolded part of your statement that is wrong. The "equilibrium" value that costs will come down to will still be much higher then they are without C&T.

(aside-CO2 is NOT pollution by any respect. At worse it is a greenhouse contributing gas.)

The "creating the market for the right to pollute" is the broken window fallacy part. In the parable of the broken window, the glass maker claimed that the boy created a market for new windows by breaking the store window. This is exactly analogous to the government enacting a new tax on current industries, even if there is a way to partially avoid the tax. In any event, the total wealth of the economic system is decreased and everyone is worse off.

in regards to the bold, i never said they were, i said they would come down from the initial price after the institution of the cap. Furthermore, one cannot know the new developments that will come from refocused research.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87


On top of that heavy industry will move to Mexico at faster than normal rates. So middle america not only gets taxed but loses a job.

Now pat yourself on the back for doing a good job.

race to the bottom is not a valid argument.

the rest i generally agree with.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why are we doing this, because our economy is healthy and can withstand such a heavy handed punch? No.

Maybe we?re doing it because everyone uses energy. Sort of like if all the water in this country was capped and regulated. If you own a commodity that people need, then you OWN the people who need it.

Based on that simple truth I can only conclude that this is yet another power grab. That this is not just unconstitutional by law, but in heart and soul as well. An attack on the very notion of an American people who are at liberty to live their lives in happiness. Try doing that under an iron boot.

A goal of ?Maximum individual freedom possible? does not sound like cap and trade. The proposals our government proponents put out are the very antithesis of American existence.