Cap and Tirade: Bachmann Repeats Falsehood

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[EasyRider 3]

What a despicable woman. How she managed to win re-election in a moderate state like Minnesota, I have no idea.

Edited April 28, 2009 by EasyRider

[Bobby+Umit 161]

I just saw this - she seems like someone doesn't know what she is talking about..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh my...

[rclouse 0]

"A natural by-product of nature"? #######?

God this ####### is stupid.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"A natural by-product of nature"? #######?

God this ####### is stupid.

New! All Natural Uranium Toothpaste! It'll make your teeth shine, even at night with the lights off.

[UmmSqueakster 54]

What a despicable woman. How she managed to win re-election in a moderate state like Minnesota, I have no idea.

Because many conservatives have fled Minneapolis and Saint Paul for the suburbs and exurbs, thus creating a conservative ring around the liberal metro area. The two congressional districts covering the Minneapolis and Saint Paul are considered very safe democratic seats, while the 3 districts that surround the cities and encompass most of the suburbs and beyond are somewhat safe republican seats. But, Bachmann only won by 13,000 votes this last time around. Hopefully she'll continue to stick her foot in her mouth before the 2010 election.

[GaryC 7]

Next Bernie Madoff? Emissions Cap-and-Trade Aids the Corrupt, Hurts the Little Guy

By William O'Keefe

Posted April 13, 2009

The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street's exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading.

The cap-and-trade system being touted on Capitol Hill would create a multibillion-dollar playground that would, once again, create a group of wealthy traders benefiting at the expense of millions of average families—middle to low-income households that would end up paying more for food, energy, and almost everything else they buy.

Enron executives—before their well-deserved fall—did little to conceal their lust for cap-and-trade. In 2002, the Washington Post reported that "an internal Enron memo said the Kyoto agreement, if implemented, would do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States."

Promoting the bottom lines of opportunists is not the job of policymakers. Assisting the staggering 2.6 million American workers who lost their jobs in just the last four months should be. With our nation struggling through the worst economic crisis in over 70 years, Congress shouldn't risk further economic damage by pushing a risky carbon emission mitigation scheme. There are far better alternatives for dealing with climate change.

Albert Einstein once observed that things should be made as simple as possible but no simpler. The corollary is that policies should be made no more complex than necessary. Cap-and-trade, however, is excessively complex.

President Obama has pledged to use cap-and-trade to reduce U.S. carbon emissions 80 percent by 2050, and projects over $3 trillion in revenue from the auction of emissions permits to domestic companies. And the carbon trading system outlined in the draft bill released by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on Tuesday calls for an even more aggressive target—a 20 percent reduction in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020. But even a casual look at Europe's existing cap-and-trade program provides ample reason to believe that it just won't work.

European governments and industries, in an attempt to stave off the economic impact of cap-and-trade, have found plenty of ways to game the system. Governments have freely handed out emissions allowances. Meanwhile, European consumers have suffered as energy rates have increased. Homeowners in Germany are paying 25 percent more for electricity now than they did before the implementation of cap-and-trade.

The European legal system encourages a "wink and nod" approach to regulation; to date, ours does not.

In contrast to the burdens borne by European households, traders have been reaping the benefits of emissions trading with little regard for the environmental concerns cap-and-trade is supposed to address. The emissions permit market has constantly fluctuated. With the price of carbon up or down by an average of 17.5 percent per month and with daily price shifts as great as 70 percent, European companies have been left to simply guess at how much their environmental compliance costs might be each month. Consequently, investors have been reluctant to invest in these businesses and there is little incentive to invest in new technologies.

As a result, UNCCC data show that the European emissions rate under cap-and-trade increased by 3.5 percent from 2000 to 2006 while U.S. emissions increased by only 0.7 percent.

Washington has little reason to expect different results here. Emission trading has the potential to be the next sub-prime housing market, the next Enron, the next blow to our already weakened economy.

The U.S. unemployment rate is verging on double digits. Taxpayers are being forced to shoulder the burden of a $1 trillion-plus stimulus bill. Yet, the administration and some in Congress are still pushing a high-risk carbon trading strategy—a flawed approach likely to put even more Americans out of work.

Environmentally or economically, it just doesn't make sense.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/200...little-guy.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

But even a casual look at Europe's existing cap-and-trade program provides ample reason to believe that it just won't work.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/200...little-guy.html

The Cap and Trade proposal before Congress is quite different from the one implemented in Europe. A more accurate example would be the U.S. Cap and Trade on acid rain...

Cap and trade was designed, tested and proven here in the United States, as a program within the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The success of this program led The Economist magazine to crown it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002).

The following points highlight some real world results of that program:

The Acid Rain Experience

Unprecedented Environmental Protection at Unmatched Cost Efficiency

• The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $579-$1,935 per ton of SO2; the actual market price as of January 2003 was $150 per ton.
• In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% - 7.3 million tons - below mandated levels.
• Prior to the launch of the program, cost estimates had ranged from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were around $0.8 billion per year. The long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The market-based approach enshrined in the U.S. Acid Rain program has demonstrated that environmental protections need not compete with economic well-being.

The following chart, based on government data, demonstrates this point graphically:

Environmental Protection

No Longer Environment vs. Economy

Why do market-based environmental protections work so well?

• Markets provide greater environmental effectiveness than command-and-control regulation because they turn pollution reductions into marketable assets. In doing so, this system creates tangible financial rewards for environmental performance.
• Because cap-and-trade gives pollution reductions a value in the marketplace, the system prompts technological and process innovations that reduce pollution down to or beyond required levels. This point is not theoretical; experience has shown these results.

What are the elements of a well-designed cap and trade program?

A successful market-based program requires just a few minimum elements. All of the following are absolutely essential to an efficient and effective program:

• A mandatory emissions "cap." This is a limit on the total tons of emissions that can be emitted. It provides the standard by which environmental progress is measured, and it gives tons traded on the pollution market value; if the tons didn’t result in real reductions to the atmosphere, they don’t have any market value.
• A fixed number of allowances for each polluting entity. Each allowance gives the owner the right to emit one ton of pollution at any time. Allocation of allowances can occur via a number of different formulas.
• Banking and trading. A source that reduces its emissions below its allowance level may sell the extra allowances to another source. A source that finds it more expensive to reduce emissions below allowable levels may purchase allowances from another source. Buyers and sellers may “bank” any unused allowances for future use.
• Clear performance criteria. At the end of the compliance period (e.g., one year, five years, etc.), each source must hold a number of allowances equal to its tons of emissions for that period, and must have measured its emissions accurately and reported them transparently.
• Flexibility. Sources have flexibility to decide when, where and how to reduce emissions.

Summary

An active cap-and-trade market enables those who can reduce pollution cheaply to earn a return on their pollution reduction investment by selling extra allowances. It enables those who can’t reduce pollution as cheaply to purchase allowances at a lower cost than the cost of reducing their own emissions. It enables all participants to meet the total emissions cap cost-effectively. And it gives all emitters incentives to innovate to find the least-cost solutions for total pollution control.

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

[GaryC 7]

But even a casual look at Europe's existing cap-and-trade program provides ample reason to believe that it just won't work.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/200...little-guy.html

The Cap and Trade proposal before Congress is quite different from the one implemented in Europe. A more accurate example would be the U.S. Cap and Trade on acid rain...

Cap and trade was designed, tested and proven here in the United States, as a program within the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The success of this program led The Economist magazine to crown it "probably the greatest green success story of the past decade." (July 6, 2002).

The following points highlight some real world results of that program:

The Acid Rain Experience

Unprecedented Environmental Protection at Unmatched Cost Efficiency

• The expected market price for SO2 allowances was in the range of $579-$1,935 per ton of SO2; the actual market price as of January 2003 was $150 per ton.
• In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100% compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants participating in the program reduced SO2 emissions 22% - 7.3 million tons - below mandated levels.
• Prior to the launch of the program, cost estimates had ranged from $3-$25 billion per year. After the first 2 years of the program, the costs were around $0.8 billion per year. The long-term costs of the program are expected to be around $1.0-$1.4 billion per year, far below early projections.

The market-based approach enshrined in the U.S. Acid Rain program has demonstrated that environmental protections need not compete with economic well-being.

The following chart, based on government data, demonstrates this point graphically:

Environmental Protection

No Longer Environment vs. Economy

Why do market-based environmental protections work so well?

• Markets provide greater environmental effectiveness than command-and-control regulation because they turn pollution reductions into marketable assets. In doing so, this system creates tangible financial rewards for environmental performance.
• Because cap-and-trade gives pollution reductions a value in the marketplace, the system prompts technological and process innovations that reduce pollution down to or beyond required levels. This point is not theoretical; experience has shown these results.

What are the elements of a well-designed cap and trade program?

A successful market-based program requires just a few minimum elements. All of the following are absolutely essential to an efficient and effective program:

• A mandatory emissions "cap." This is a limit on the total tons of emissions that can be emitted. It provides the standard by which environmental progress is measured, and it gives tons traded on the pollution market value; if the tons didn’t result in real reductions to the atmosphere, they don’t have any market value.
• A fixed number of allowances for each polluting entity. Each allowance gives the owner the right to emit one ton of pollution at any time. Allocation of allowances can occur via a number of different formulas.
• Banking and trading. A source that reduces its emissions below its allowance level may sell the extra allowances to another source. A source that finds it more expensive to reduce emissions below allowable levels may purchase allowances from another source. Buyers and sellers may “bank” any unused allowances for future use.
• Clear performance criteria. At the end of the compliance period (e.g., one year, five years, etc.), each source must hold a number of allowances equal to its tons of emissions for that period, and must have measured its emissions accurately and reported them transparently.
• Flexibility. Sources have flexibility to decide when, where and how to reduce emissions.

Summary

An active cap-and-trade market enables those who can reduce pollution cheaply to earn a return on their pollution reduction investment by selling extra allowances. It enables those who can’t reduce pollution as cheaply to purchase allowances at a lower cost than the cost of reducing their own emissions. It enables all participants to meet the total emissions cap cost-effectively. And it gives all emitters incentives to innovate to find the least-cost solutions for total pollution control.

http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085

SO2 isn't the same as CO2. The latter is MUCH harder to reduce. Just remember, we are a nation that was able to hand out loans to people that couldn't afford them, package the bad loans up and sell them as an asset and almost destroy our entire economy in the process. This will be a playground for the traders. If you can't see that then you just don't want to see.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

SO2 isn't the same as CO2. The latter is MUCH harder to reduce. Just remember, we are a nation that was able to hand out loans to people that couldn't afford them, package the bad loans up and sell them as an asset and almost destroy our entire economy in the process. This will be a playground for the traders. If you can't see that then you just don't want to see.

Are you advocating that we do away with all trading? How about a more reasonable approach - implement tighter regulations and more oversight? I'm not ready to give up on market trading just because there were laxed regulations that people exploited.

[GaryC 7]

SO2 isn't the same as CO2. The latter is MUCH harder to reduce. Just remember, we are a nation that was able to hand out loans to people that couldn't afford them, package the bad loans up and sell them as an asset and almost destroy our entire economy in the process. This will be a playground for the traders. If you can't see that then you just don't want to see.

Are you advocating that we do away with all trading? How about a more reasonable approach - implement tighter regulations and more oversight? I'm not ready to give up on market trading just because there were laxed regulations that people exploited.

I am saying that any form of cap and trade invites abuse and increases costs to the poor and middle class. Cap and trade is a really dumb idea.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

SO2 isn't the same as CO2. The latter is MUCH harder to reduce. Just remember, we are a nation that was able to hand out loans to people that couldn't afford them, package the bad loans up and sell them as an asset and almost destroy our entire economy in the process. This will be a playground for the traders. If you can't see that then you just don't want to see.

Are you advocating that we do away with all trading? How about a more reasonable approach - implement tighter regulations and more oversight? I'm not ready to give up on market trading just because there were laxed regulations that people exploited.

I am saying that any form of cap and trade invites abuse and increases costs to the poor and middle class. Cap and trade is a really dumb idea.

On the trading side of things, Gary, there isn't any difference between the Cap and Trade that reduced acid rain. They may be different substances, but in terms of trading and what you are talking about - abuse, there's not one iota of a difference. Cap and Trade has worked here in the states with acid rain and there's no evidence that this cannot work the same way.

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

steven, how much is your electric bill in the summer? your heating bill in the winter? would you like for that to double?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

steven, how much is your electric bill in the summer? your heating bill in the winter? would you like for that to double?

My electric bill (I have no gas) runs about $30-40 per month. Comparatively, when gasoline prices jumped last year to over $4.50 a gallon, my monthly fuel costs doubled. So, if I was spending $200 on gas at about $2.60 a gallon, I was spending over $300 a month.

So if you are asking me which one I'd prefer, I'd take a slight raise in my electric bill than watch my gas costs go up.