Cap and Trade

[Alluvial]

Its seems as though the cost is hard to pin down. MIT did a study in 2007 on cap-and-trade. Note that their scenario is different from Waxman-Markey somewhat.

Here is a link to the MIT study (big pdf). One scientist who worked on that study has said that his estimate is $800 per year, per household.

Originally Posted by John Reilly

The present value cost per average current household through 2050, as corrected, is about $800. Again, this estimate includes the direct effects of higher energy prices, the cost of measures to reduce energy use, the higher price of goods that are produced using energy, and impacts on wages and returns on capital. The cost per household will of course vary from our hypothetical average family depending on the household’s circumstances, though the burden on lower income households can be offset through the use of auction revenues.

From here.

[TheMercenary]

$800 per...?

[Alluvial]

Averaged over the years 2015 to 2050, annual cost for a family of four (original estimate was $340, changed to $800):

From data in the report we can calculate the economic cost in each year (percentage loss times the base welfare level in each year), and divide this by the US population, and then multiply this amount by four to estimate the cost for a representative family of four. We further apply an economic discount rate of 4% to get the Net Present Value (NPV) cost in each year in the future. Doing this we find that the NPV cost per family of four starts at about $75 in 2015, rises to nearly $510 by 2025, and then falls to $205 by 2050. We can calculate the average annual NPV cost per family by summing over all years and dividing by the number of years, and this shows the average annual net present value cost to be about $340 - only a part of which would be actual energy bill increases.

From here.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Any costs they incur will be passed on to the consumer. And it ain't going to be cheap...

And therein lies the fault of the plan. I am all for punishing big energy companies that refuse to change, but it needs to be done in such a way so they CANNOT pass the expense along to the consumers. The consumers want change. Consumers want clean energy. It isn't the consumers fault these people are still building dirty coal plants, when they could be building clean ones.

IMO they are going about it all wrong anyway. They are making it too fucking complicated. All they need to do, is subsidize companies that create clean energy plants (like solar or wind, etc.), and subsudize people solarizing their homes, or putting in personal wind mills, or whatever works in different areas, and then making energy companies buy back the excess energy at a fair rate. That would empower the people of this country, it would allow people who can't afford solar panels (or whatever) to have them, it wouldn't really need the cooperation of big energy, and everyone wins. Big energy gets clean power to sell back to customers, people who choose to participate will get a drastic reduction in energy costs, and people who create green energy and green energy jobs get start-up reduction in costs. It's a win-win. Of course big energy companies won't like it because it will end up cutting into their profits, but who cares. Maybe it would force them to change and get with the program.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It allows companies who have lots of money to buy the abiltiy to pollute more from companies who have less money and pollution credits.

I certainly support the investment and encouragement of green energy and renewable sources. But right now they are not really fully developed. I would rather put more money into the research than hammering industry and the consumer with taxes to force compliance.

And that in itself is incredibly shortsighted and STUPID. Do they honestly think speculaters won't find a way to get rich while screwing the rest of the country if they TRADE pollution credits? And it fucking really pisses me off that someone could just buy their way into polluting as much they want.

[sugarpop]

I watched this show called Eco-Tech (on the Science Network) a few weeks ago about new alternative energy. Merc, it most definitely is developed, maybe not completely-all technology changes as innovation develops-but it is proven enough to start building the plants.

Apparently in South Florida, they have been developing turbines that will work under water, and are slated to be put in sometime over the next year or two. They are developing them to have the least impact on marine life. They are also looking at pumping the cold water from the bottom of the ocean to help cool all the waterfront condos and hotels. They think they can supply all the energy needs of the state with this technology.

There was a meeting here recently to look at putting wind turbines off the coast in the ocean. Apparently Tybee is looking good for something like that.

In Spain, they have built a solar tower, and plan to build a few more, that will power the whole city of Seville, or 600,000 people.

And there is another city, I believe it is Norway, where almost the whole place is powered by alternative energy sources, including solar, and in a place where there isn't all that much sun.

There is a man in Chicago who has devloped wind turbines that can be used in urban areas. They work very well on top of tall buildings, and high winds are not a problem like they would be with regular turbines. They are already working with the cities of Chicago and New York to use these to help power certain buildings, and they have a contract with India as well. Here is the company... http://www.aerotecture.com/ Here is another company supplying small wind turbines... http://www.mariahpower.com/

There is a man who has developed a very thin plastic that works as a solar collector. It might very well one day be used on roof tiles or in window shades to help power your house. (I'll supply the link later. I apparently don't have it saved in my favorites section and I will have to find the page where I wrote it down.)

They talked about a lot more. You really should check out the show when it comes on again.

I also watched an episode of Futurecar, called "the fuels," and apparantly Norway is already building a hydrogen highway. They have figured out how to supply hydrogen at the pump. They have designed cars that might one day power your house. It really is amazing.

All these other countries are so far ahead of us it really is very sad. We think we are the best. We think we are so damn smart. We aren't. We are actually very, very foolish, because we just allow corporations to mandate how we live.

[Alluvial]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

All these other countries are so far ahead of us it really is very sad.

To be fair, there are many technological advances being developed in the U.S. that everyday people aren't aware of, such as the water turbine you mention.

[sugarpop]

And the wind turbines I mentioned, I agree. But that isn't even being debating in the energy plan. It is all about big energy corporations. They need to think in a different way about it, and not worry if big energy gets upset.

And the reason I said that is because even the people of this country seem bent on discrediting anything different or new, and keeping those jerks in power and in control over the rest of us, in addition to those assholes in Washington. Other countries are really doing something about moving in that direction. We aren't.

[Alluvial]

I think part of that is the many factions we have here - all pulling in different directions. It's difficult to arrive at agreement. Americans have a difficult time seeing the 'big picture' as it were.

[classicman]

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Global Warming Bill (HR 2454)

The bill is being criticized as the largest tax increase in United States History, so needless to say it has the full backing of the White House.

The legislation, which no member of Congress even claims to have read, imposes limits on carbon dioxide and other green house gas emissions from power plants, factories and refineries. The original legislation also included a tax on bovine flatulence (cow farts) which was removed to gain the apparently necessary support of Democrats from agricultural districts.

This legislation marks the culmination and hopefully the beginning of the end of Global warming hysteria in Washington. While the hysterics over global warming/climate change appeared at first to be undisputed and undisputable over time scientists all over the world have emerged to challenge the validity of the claims made by people like Al Gore. However the fanatics still attempt to stifle any and all dissent, such as the suppressed report by Alan Carlin, a senior researcher at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Proponents of climate change legislation claim as President Obama did in his campaign that they wish to lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. Meanwhile they oppose drilling in the United States to tap the resources we have in this country. Today’s legislation however takes the next step. It enshrines in it a measure that will effectively make drilling for domestic energy more expensive so that conservatives cannot push for domestic drilling as a viable alternative to solving the “energy crisis.” The legislation places a larger tax on domestic gasoline than it does on foreign gasoline. According to a story at Bloomberg News the same amount of gas produced domestically will have $1.00 in carbon costs imposed on it, and meanwhile foreign gas will have ten cents less in carbon costs in it.

Today’s environmental movement behind global warming hysteria is a direct descendant of the movement that defeated the possibility of nuclear power in the United States 30 years ago. In a typical fashion these environmental activists have declared the debate closed and will accept no further questions on the subject. They prattle on about sustainable living with ingenious ideas like the no flush toilet. They brag about living “off the grid” in houses with solar panels without giving a second thought to how the glass, steel and tiles of those solar panels require the very factories and refineries that they wish to see shut down. These people have no idea how the industrial world works. Our lives depend on what fossil fuels can do for us. Our lives depend on the manufacturing of plastic, steel glass, paper plants and pharmaceutical plants. The environmentalists want our lives to depend on what windmills can do for us. That’s right windmills which can’t even produce enough energy to manufacture more windmills are supposed to give us everything else we depend on to live our lives.

This legislation is not about the what is best for the Earth it is about raising taxes and imposing the agenda of the far left environmental movement, and that agenda is no about waht is best for humanity, it is about defeating humanity as we know it.

[classicman]

The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined.

"He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla, a global warming skeptic, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it."

According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare.

An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited."
(Apparently he is also a physicist)

"It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments."

Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him.

Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command.

Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue.

"It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure."

Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two.

Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished."

Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding.

McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments.

"The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."

Reps. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and Darrell Issa, R-Calif., also wrote a letter last week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the agency to reopen its comment period on the finding. The EPA has since denied the request.

Citing the internal e-mails, the Republican congressmen wrote that the EPA was exhibiting an "agency culture set in a predetermined course."

"It documents at least one instance in which the public was denied access to significant scientific literature and raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed," they wrote.

In a written statement, Issa said the administration is "actively seeking to withhold new data in order to justify a political conclusion."

"I'm sure it was very inconvenient for the EPA to consider a study that contradicted the findings it wanted to reach," Sensenbrenner said in a statement, adding that the "repression" of Carlin's report casts doubt on the entire finding.

Carlin said he's concerned that he's seeing "science being decided at the presidential level."

I remember a thread about science being perverted for politics. I do not know if this is the R's complaining about everything or if this is a valid issue. To me though, it does seem as if there is a lot more dissent among scientists about exactly what causes what and even more importantly, how to rectify or lessen whatever effect we as the supposed caretakers of this planet can do.

Politically, I hate the way this bill was slammed through the process without one congressman having read it. Commonplace? perhaps, but isn't that what was wrong in the past? Wasn't this time supposed to be different? It may be the same book with a shiny new cover and a much higher price tag.

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that an unsolicited report from an unrelated office would be included in any official document, regardless of the subject.

[classicman]

Home > News Release > CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA
CEI Releases Global Warming Study Censored by EPA
The Public Shouldn’t Be Kept in the Dark by an Agency Supposedly Committed to Transparency
AddThis Social Bookmark Button Email This Print This

by Richard Morrisontwitter
June 25, 2009
Washington, D.C., June 26, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.

The report finds that EPA, by adopting the United Nations’ 2007 “Fourth Assessment” report, is relying on outdated research and is ignoring major new developments. Those developments include a continued decline in global temperatures, a new consensus that future hurricanes will not be more frequent or intense, and new findings that water vapor will moderate, rather than exacerbate, temperature.

New data also indicate that ocean cycles are probably the most important single factor in explaining temperature fluctuations, though solar cycles may play a role as well, and that reliable satellite data undercut the likelihood of endangerment from greenhouse gases. All of this demonstrates EPA should independently analyze the science, rather than just adopt the conclusions of outside organizations.

The released report is a draft version, prepared under EPA’s unusually short internal review schedule, and thus may contain inaccuracies which were corrected in the final report.

“While we hoped that EPA would release the final report, we’re tired of waiting for this agency to become transparent, even though its Administrator has been talking transparency since she took office. So we are releasing a draft version of the report ourselves, today,” said CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman.

[TheMercenary]

Heh. See the stuff I posted in the Global Warming thread. Same thing. Pretty disgusting what Congress has done to this country through this bill....

[sugarpop]

I'm not sure I trust anything coming from a think tank that is all about free enterprise and limited government, because those people will always side with industry. I am more interested in what actual scientists have to say, and the expedition that went to the North Pole for a couple of years says different...
"Future Earth: Journey to the End of the World," http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29840099...v-future_earth

Maybe that's why that report from CEI was left out.