Cap and Trade...tax,,,?

[pocketfullofshells]

is it just me or was Cap n trade the idea of the republicans like 8-10 years ago...but when the Dems move to the right and go for it , its now a tax?

also what kinda tax is it when you are under your amount and sell your rest for profit? I want my taxes to be profit for me as well

 

[BigRob]

is it just me or was Cap n trade the idea of the republicans like 8-10 years ago...but when the Dems move to the right and go for it , its now a tax?

also what kinda tax is it when you are under your amount and sell your rest for profit? I want my taxes to be profit for me as well

This bill is different from any Republican proposal of the past.

And it is a tax. A tax on business that will get passed right on to the consumer. And given the levels they were stating they wanted to cut to, I have doubts that you would even come under the limits.

Half the Congresspeople talking about this bill have tacitly admitted they have no idea what is even in it. It is kind of sad.

 

[Pidgey]

is it just me or was Cap n trade the idea of the republicans like 8-10 years ago...but when the Dems move to the right and go for it , its now a tax?

also what kinda tax is it when you are under your amount and sell your rest for profit? I want my taxes to be profit for me as well

Looking over the full text of Waxman-Markey at this point. You can see at least one version of it here:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090515/hr2454.pdf

It doesn't actually delineate at this point all the practical details of every little thing with respect to emitting CO2, you know, but it does give some idea of the limitations as a whole. In effect, it would mean to limit the amount of total CO2 released in the US. While you as a consumer might think that that means you can make money from businesses, it wouldn't work out that way in actual practice.

And it will get very complicated, of course, because some efficiency gains will be made in power generation, vehicle fuel consumption efficiency and home & industrial uses. The only problem with that is that there's a Law of Diminishing Returns that governs such energy conversions to "work done". As a projector in the energy industry, I have to make just such cost/benefit analyses on a regular basis. Greater efficiency virtually always ultimately costs more, 'tis true.

For the consumer, it will translate into higher costs for all products that have consumed energy in their processing and distribution, from bananas to alarm clocks to cars to lumber to even the lemonade that children sell at home lemonade stands. At first glance, you might say that's absolutely ridiculous that the price of lemonade could go up due to a bill like this but if the cost of the diesel used to process the base product and deliver it to market goes up, then I assure you that it will have to be included in the cost buildup at the point of distribution and marketing.

Personally, I think it's all a moot point anyway due to the constraints that will become evident by Peak Oil anyhow. About the only thing that I see of any value for discussion about it is whether the proponents of the Bill are doing so from altruistic or profit motives.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Check out this article: http://tinyurl.com/mrcdln

There is also a level of price/profit regulation that will not allow for any of this to have a dramatic impact on emissions. In the other hand it will have a heck of an impact on our wallets.

 

[Pidgey]

Tell you what--find some places of business and homes that have incorporated their own power generation and then disclose the economics completely, total CAPEX and OPEX. It'll make you sick if you can manage to include everything.

The bottom line on energy is that you must maintain or increase the actual "work done" against the total cost of producing and distributing the energy in the first place. AND if you're going to try and sustain GROWTH (you have to if you're going to keep going further and further in debt, by the way), then you must DEFINITELY increase "work done" against the production/distribution costs. If not then your economy's going down the drain.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I think people needed to get the idea that you you cant just get something from nothing...you cant cut polluton and not have some costs and losers. At least not short term...long term you may be able to.

 

[Pidgey]

Well, that's the funny part--it's not pollution. Pollution is something like CO (Carbon Monoxide, which is going to find an extra oxygen atom somewhere and convert to CO2 anyhow), NOx (oxides of nitrogen, which also aren't much of a true pollutant seeing as how lightning makes a bunch of it), or some VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds), especially nasty ones.

Carbon Dioxide is just an intermediate compound in the organic life cycle on the planet. What most folks don't know (and many scientists, for that matter) is that once upon a time, we had a hyperbaric atmosphere compared to today. In actuality, Jurassic Park couldn't in fact happen because the large dinosaurs cannot respire in this relatively rarefied atmosphere. There's just not enough oxygen partial pressure to keep them alive because we've lost alot. If Kirk, Scotty and the Enterprise could go back in time, beam up a Brachiosaurus, hop through time in a heartbeat and beam the gigantic animal back down to anywhere on Earth, it would die of hypoxia within minutes.

We started with a lot more and are now suffering some loss due to solar wind and more due to the same problems at the Biosphere experiments.

I've been working on a green, renewable, home-energy strategy and as an engineer with an eye to project costs, it's been a real pain. Conversion and storage efficiencies are the worst part although peak load capacity versus system turndown is a nightmare as well--that is, if you've got a budget. If money is no object then Katie bar the door!