The Cost Of Cap And Trade
Burning one ton of coal produces about three tons of CO2. So a tax of $15 per ton of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a tax of $45/ton on coal. The price of Eastern anthracite coal runs in the neighborhood of $45/ton, so under the proposed system, such coal would be taxed at a rate of about 100 percent. The price of Western bituminous coal is currently about $12/ton. This coal would therefore be taxed at a rate of almost 400 percent. Coal provides half of America’s electricity, so such extraordinary imposts could easily double the electric bills paid by consumers and businesses across half the nation. In addition, many businesses, such as the metals and chemical industries, use a great deal of coal directly. By doubling or potentially even quadrupling the cost of their most basic feedstock, the cap-and-trade system’s indulgence fees could make many such businesses uncompetitive and ultimately throw millions of working men and women onto the unemployment lines.
It’s OK. Even if they have paychecks, they won’t be able to afford to eat any more, anyway, after the price of food skyrockets. And it will solve that pesky population problem in the third world.
July 1st, 2009 at 9:33 am
At what point do we realize we’ve been infiltrated by the enemy out to destroy us?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am
You know, I’m feeling a strange sort of peace.
Go ahead. Do it. Let’s just see what happens.
I can’t stop it anyway, I contacted my dhimmicrat representative before the Crap-and-Trade vote, and then wrote him a thank you letter after the fact, thanking him for failing me.
I’ve worked as an aircraft mechanic, sewer tech, appliance repairman, and now a refinery.
Most of those jobs worked me to death for low pay, and the refinery is the first one to pay well enough to do something other than work.
Now, my costs will skyrocket in the near term, and I can look forwward to being among the ranks of the unemployed, fighting for a so-called green job.
Incompetence can’t begin to describe the actions of the dems.
They are actively working to put EVERYONE one the welfare rolls.
The sad thing is, I had to work to make my mom understand that public school teachers are government employees.
If she lacks the will or intelligence to follow that conversation, then she’d never comprehend the damage BHO is doing, and will probably pull the lever for the Marxist again, if given the chance.
She won’t get it until her grandson is homeless. Maybe not even then.
I suppose we could charge her admission to see him, just to have some income, after the refinery closes.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:20 am
For centuries there has been no price to venting CO2 to the atmosphere, with the result that CO2 concentrations are now higher than they’ve been in human history, the ocean is more acidic, and we are seeing the early signs of dramatic climate change. The “cost” of venting CO2 is there no matter what we do. Waxman-Markey assigns part of that cost to the people venting the CO2, so our market economy will push us to only vent CO2 when the economic benefit exceeds that cost.
The question for Zubrin is: why should CO2 emitters continue to get a free ride?
July 1st, 2009 at 10:35 am
Translation: Jim to poor people “Drop Dead. You should have thought about needing food and fuel before you decided to be born without money and political connections. Now shut up and bear the cost your political betters have decided to give you.”
And by Jim’s logic everyone, save the decomposed, should be taxed. Afterall, for animals C02 emission is a part of life.
Oooh new talking point! W-M doesn’t hurt the economy, the free market (what there is of it) reaction to it does! Obviously the free market needs to be corrected so it doesn’t react badly to W-M.
I like that Jim blindly asserts that the costs Waxmen shovels down our throats are worth the results. That the price will yeild environmental impact that offests the economic damage, instead of being a massive pork and graft mess.
But I guess that’s how faith works.
Besides if enough people get poor enough then we’ll at least spread the misery around, and that’s close enough.
July 1st, 2009 at 10:43 am
CO2 is food for plants. You know, the base of the food chain. . . .
Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_2000_yrs.html
maybe we should start paying people to put CO2 in the air.
Regards,
July 1st, 2009 at 10:57 am
Jim(?) says “The question for Zubrin is: why should CO2 emitters continue to get a free ride?”
Well, maybe the following provides part of the answer…
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/
Remember that this is being funded by CERN, even though many would claim that “the science is settled”.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:02 am
Mike, please stop trying to inject logic into this discussion.
The “CO2 means Death” leaders will burn you at the stake (using non-fossil fuels, of course) for writing such heresay.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:03 am
Among the potential consequences of these charges, I see at least two:
(1) Nuclear may become more competitive with coal for baseload power generation.
(2) There will be strong monetary incentive to scrub CO2 from the flue gases of existing coal-fired powerplants. If ammonia-based scrubbing is as cheap as projected it may be adopted on a large scale, at least at locations where CO2 can be disposed of nearby.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:13 am
Waxman-Markey assigns part of that cost to the people venting the CO2
Oh, I won’t have to pay anything then. I guess it’s OK then.
Dickhead.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:27 am
The problem with Zubrin’s analysis is that he assumes that a scheme explicably designed to phase out reliance on coal will not actually reduce the dependence on coal. The current use numbers of coal (and thus the tax burden) do not apply in a world with W-M.
Then he cites the miracle of American agriculture, and the potential impact on it. Sorry, American agriculture is in a dire state, with subsidies ranging up to %100 of revenue for some states, and massive overproduction is a big reason. Costs do not equal prices. The prices in the supermarket have little correlation with the pitance that farmers are getting.
The food miles arguement is a dumb one, but America should not be feeding the third world. Its unwise for both parties.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
Earth’s atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished!
Those earlier times had a very different global climate, one that humans have never experienced. Some plants would do great, but it would be a huge problem for us.
Well, maybe the following provides part of the answer…
You can keep looking for the silver bullet study that undermines the IPCC report, but this one isn’t it. It says that there are non-anthropogenic sources of sudden climate change. That doesn’t mean we’re subject to one one those sources today, or that human-driven climate change is not happening. It just means that the climate can change dramatically and dangerously even without human meddling. To my mind that’s all the more reason why we should not add our own “forcings”, since we might aggravate a “natural” change in the same direction.
Oh, I won’t have to pay anything then. I guess it’s OK then. Dickhead.
Eloquent as always. The money does not vanish — it goes back to consumers, funds research into clean coal, nuclear, and renewables, etc. If you’re poor you actually come out ahead on the deal; if you’re rich you pay less than $1 a day. Meanwhile, you improve the odds of your great-grandchildren getting to see the Florida Keys before they disappear.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am
Mike,
If CO2 is all plants need for enhanced growth, I have an enormous patch of desert to sell you. Hint: C4-process based plants, which have only existing in the last 30 million years, and form the basis of modern agriculture, are not even close to CO2 limited in their growth. The Cretaceous was a completely different world to the one that our civilization occupies
July 1st, 2009 at 11:39 am
It just means that the climate can change dramatically and dangerously even without human meddling. To my mind that’s all the more reason why we should not add our own “forcings”, since we might aggravate a “natural” change in the same direction.
And you know that we aren’t fending off an even worse natural change because…?
If you’re poor you actually come out ahead on the deal; if you’re rich you pay less than $1 a day.
You really believe this, don’t you?
Have you read the bill?
July 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am
“The money does not vanish — it goes back to consumers, funds research into clean coal, nuclear, and renewables, etc.”
If it goes back to consumers then why take it? That presumes that it goes back to different consumers.
And if the aim was to merely fund research why have a 1,300 page bill that heavilly regulates everything? Are new research grants and prizes and projects that hard? Or must they be passed using bills that did not fully exist at the time of voting.
You know, for something so… important, it seems like there wasn’t much time to consider the implications of this bill and the best plan of attack.
“If you’re poor you actually come out ahead on the deal; if you’re rich you pay less than $1 a day.”
How exactly do the poor come out ahead? As consumers they pay the highest part of their income on food, electricity, and fuel?
So there is either some sort of pricing rule that prevents companies from raising prices on “the poor” but able to raise prices on “the rich” or Cap and Tax acts as a giant welfare fund too.
“Meanwhile, you improve the odds of your great-grandchildren getting to see the Florida Keys before they disappear.”
By that logic Jim, you should spend as much of your income on lottery tickets. Because each one increases the odds of you becoming rich, and you can then use that money to fund “research into clean coal, nuclear, and renewables, etc.”
What? You don’t think that’s the best way to spend your money? Huh.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The whopper of the day (so far…). I thought we were discussing Rands Zubrin quote above. How does a poor person come out ahead? By having the gov’t pay his utility bill? How does a rich person who has his utility bill doubled come out at less than a dollar a day?
I like Rands (rhetorical) question, Have you read the bill? You know, the one that doesn’t exist.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
You forgot “Creates green jobs”.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Ignoring the poor (or nonexistent) foundations of global warming science is always a mistake, as once this point is conceded, the only argument that remains is how we terrible carbon emitters are to be executed (solar-powered electric chairs?), which permits the warmists to ’steal a base’ as it were…
With that in mind, lets give these idiots a head start, and concede their point solely for argument’s sake. If the point of W-M is to reduce carbon emissions, then the subsidies also in the plan (which were added in most cases to buy votes) undermine the whole plan by removing the price signals inherent in the plan. Unless the poor (who are, by and large, the overwhelming majority of the emitters, both in absolute numbers and relative percentage) don’t feel some real pain, they have no reason whatsoever to alter their behavior and emit less carbon. The rich can easily alter their behaviors, and often do, even if the price signals for them are trivial, but the poor lack those capabilities, and thus are unlikely to make changes (which often involve significant costs in terms of lifestyles, freedom, future opportunities, etc.) unelss they are compelled by regulation or price.
Now Jim tells us that the poor might actually do better under W-M (***cough***nonsense***cough****), which if we choose to believe means that they will have no motivation whatsoever to alter their existing carbon emissions. Remember that Jim has also told us that the status quo of emissions is utterly unacceptable as a matter of urgency, i.e. that we must reduce emissions NOW, and continue to do so for quite some time. Once again, the poor (as Jim tells us) will not get any appropriate price signals, and even those higher up the economic ladder will get only trivial ones.
If we believe this…why should we believe that W-M would have any positive effects whatsoever, other than for govt regulators and various rent-seeking industries? I would oppose, but would at least understand the honesty of straightforward rationing, but this doesn’t even achieve that unworthy end. Of course, if the real purpose of this bill was to establish the precedent for regulating virtually the entire economy under the cover of environmental concerns….
So Jim, if W-M doesn’t have any real economic impact on consumers (who are, after all, driving emissions), then why should we believe that this misbegotten mess should have any postive impact on their behavior, and thus upon this terrible crisis you have your panties in a twist about? So, which is it? Real impact or none?
July 1st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
It would be one thing if we passed a bad bill, it was tried and found not to work and those wrong would concede… but they never, ever concede… no amount of fact makes a dent in their ideology.
Arguing with Jim doesn’t make him the fool, it makes all those arguing with him the fool.
Multiply Jim by a million. There’s the problem.
When argument no longer works, what’s next???
July 1st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Here is one way to help the poor to benefit. We should write legislation that assigns “carbon permits” to all immigrants from countries that are not signatories to Kyoto style agreements. I recall the baseline year for emmisions is 1990. How about claiming the right for unrestricted emmisions for all members of our population who immigrated to the USA since 1990? Countries like China and India are not commiting to emmision caps, as it hurts their growth out of historical poverty. As long as we accept that carbon emmisions are a reflection of the economic activity that pulls societies and individuals out of poverty, why should nationality be a differentiating factor in a supposed global climate issue?
July 1st, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“The money does not vanish — it goes back to consumers, funds research into clean coal, nuclear, and renewables, etc. If you’re poor you actually come out ahead on the deal; if you’re rich you pay less than $1 a day.”
This is the ‘broken window’ argument, and is refuted in Henry Hazlitts’ “Economics in one lesson”. And I really don’t think it’s a ‘deal’ – it’s an imposition from the government.
I think the idea of America is one of the noblest imaginable. But I look at America the country today and am staggered to see what’s going on – the assaults on freedom (DHS, TSA), liberty, free speech (‘fairness’ doctrine) and private property (Kelo, Banks, GM) just seem to keep coming and coming. It’s very worrying.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Once again, neither Jim nor Duncan followed the links – there is no, nada, zip, zilch, nyet, nein correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.
I won’t even bother to bring up the earth has been cooling the last 7 or so years. . . .
There must be some other cause – maybe a giant nuclear firestorm that beams down energy on the earth all day . . . . and maybe, just maybe when there are surges (read sunspots activity) the earth gets a bit warmer. . . naw. couldn’t. be.
btw Duncan, your strawman about plants – I didn’t say CO2 was all plants required. Photosynthesis is still photosynthesis in that it converts CO2 into sugars using energy from the sun.
And while your desert land may be useful for building a solar electrical generation facility, you won’t be able to as other breeds of environmentalists will stop the process to protect the tortoises and kangaroo rats that live in the area. (yea, its been down here – near Barstow).
Regards,
July 1st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I’m a little surprised at Zubrin for conflating the CO2 amount for a ton of anthracite with the CO2 amount for coal generally. The bituminous or semi-bituminous coal that is actually used in power generation produces about half as much CO2, and at a per-ton cost of about 20% less than anthracite might lead one to different conclusions.
The analysis also doesn’t really address what proportion of the cost of delivered electricity is due to the cost of the feedstock, nor what proportion of the cost of a unit of GDP is due to a unit of electricity. I’d say Zubrin’s reasoning is a little alarmist.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
There is plenty of nuclear fission and wind. Coal is not a good idea, for reasons other than the global warming scare, the level of pollution emitted is quite high and there is evidence linking these kinds of emissions to heart disease and stroke which is probably the main killer in the western world.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Eleven years now, and counting. If it keeps up, the modelers are going to end up twisted in knots trying to keep their models from running off a cliff. Hence the need to get this rammed through NOW.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Actually, the crap and tax bill has grandfather provisions in to to protect existing industry. It simply does not allow for any growth. Electricity rates of 2-4X what we pay now bring us in line with Japan and Europe, both of which are high energy cost societies. One of the things that high energy costs does is to make basic manufacturing very expensive. Materials processing as well. The existing capacity is grandfathered in. However, any additional capacity will end up coming from China.
The bill does contain measures for import tariffs starting in 2020 to be applied to countries that do not comply with green house gas emissions. However, the Chinese own much of our government’s debt. It is unlikely that they will roll over for these provisions. More likely they will fight and use their considerable influence over our debt to have these tariff provisions removed starting tomorrow. Remember, the Beijing leadership is made up of engineers and they are smart, so they will not wait until 2019 to get these provisions removed. In a game of trade war chicken with the Chinese, I bet on the democrats blinking first. So, I doubt these tariffs will be implemented. Much more likely, heavy industry will go to China and the U.S. will be relegated to assembly work only.
Also, the Chinese plan to build lots of nuclear power plants between now and 2020. This climate bill, if it passes, will motivate the Chinese to build many more of them.
I lived in a high energy cost society, Japan, for 10 years. High energy costs tend to make most manufactured goods, particularly housing, more expensive. This, combined with the post-bubble deflation, killed any kind of job opportunity for non-technical Japanese people. The young responded by becoming a permanent slacker class. They lived off their parents and worked part time or temp jobs to make enough money for entertainment expenses, and did the lonely planet budget travel to S.E. Asia and India. Very few of these people have bothered to get married and have kids. Whats the point of having kids if there’s not going to be any economic opportunity for them?
These are the joys of a zero-sum steady state economy that the democrats appear to want to create for us.
Tony G, if you have enough money, you ought to go to S.E. Asia and hang out there on the beaches for a good 6-12 months. That might make an impression on your left of center mother. Better yet, get an English teaching job in Asia and remain there semi-permanently and tell your mother you will return to the U.S. once the economy improves.
Japan now has a permanent slacker economy and it seems to work for them. It will not work for the U.S. Because the Japanese are Japanese, they do not have a large underclass composed of individuals with zero future time orientation. We do. So, the slacker economy will kill reproduction by the middle class. It will not reduce reproduction by the underclass. This will have negative long-term effects on our society.
Tony (UK), there is a reason why some of us may end up living in Asia permanently.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Jim,
A big problem is that the IPCC isn’t a scientific study. It’s a politically motivated summary of many studies. A study is certainly allowed to challenge other studies, but the IPCC reports aren’t a reliable source in themselves.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:53 pm
As Mr. Clapp pointed out, Zubrin makes the mistake of assuming that the cost of electricity is directly proportional to the cost of the fuel. In fact fuel costs are only a small fraction of the cost of electricity delivered to your house.
As I work it out, $48 buys you a short ton of Central Appalachian coal with a heating value of 12500 BTU/lbm. This works out to 0.00655 dollars per kWh of heating value. You have to divide by the average coal plant efficiency, say around 31% according to that Internet thing, which gives a cost of 2.1 cents per kWh input. The average cost of residential electricity in the US is around 11.2 cents per kWh, i.e. the fuel cost is less than 20% of the cost of electricity.
On the other hand, the proposed tax would be $15 per metric ton of CO2, which by my spreadsheet comes out to $61 per short ton of coal — i.e. about 125% of the market cost. But this wouldn’t raise the cost of electricity by 125%. Instead it would raise the cost by 2.6 cents per kWh — or about 25%. Much better, huh?
BBB
July 1st, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Well BBB,
Your costs are a little low for production. It’s closer to 2.8 cents, including O & M but not bad. Anytime a power company tries to raise rates even 5 to 10%, the outcry is loud and long. So imagine how people will react to 25%. Imagine that $300/mo summer light bill in GA or TX now becoming $375 for 3 or 4 months. That $300 heating bill in OH or NY becoming $375. for 3 or 4 months. Many will be less some will be more. Businesses will have much higher bills. Those kinds of increases plus whatever the business incurs on its own will get passed to the cinsumer. Don’t forget that inflation will raise its ugly head soon since we’re printing money like Zimbabwe so to say it’s not as bad as you think doesn’t quite convey the reality of a 25% increase in energy costs nationwide. Marginal businesses will close, others will cut back expansion plans and unemployement will go up even more because the people that get laid off won’t have the skills for those “green” jobs.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Another thing to keep in mind. Why was $15 per ton chosen? For the US at current consumption of fossil fuels, that is roughly 90-100 billion USD per year. Some here might recall Freeman Dyson’s review of two books on global warming. The second book dealt with economic strategies for dealing with global warming. A key conclusion was that paying upfront for costs down the road only made sense, if the futher return on that payment was more than if the money had been invested for the duration.
For example, we’re told that global warming will start significant harm a century or two down the road. By my calculation, if someone invested a dollar a year at 4% (after adjusting for inflation), which is a historically reasonable rate to achieve, they could have roughly $1260 in a century.If they invested 100 billion per year at the same rate, that would be roughly 126 trillion year 2009 dollars in 2109. What consequence of global warming is going to cost that much to anyone? Even if we had to move and care for everyone on the planet (presuming there are ten billion people alive then), that’s still $12,600 year 2009 dollars per person.
But suppose it takes two centuries for the consequences of global warming to be felt. That one dollar per year investment has now grown to almost $64,000 year 2009 dollars. Similarly, the 100 billion USD per year tax could have instead been invested to achieve 6.4 quadrillion year 2009 dollars. That’s $640k per person assuming that the world’s population is still ten billion people.
If there isn’t a consequence of global warming in a century that is roughly ten times the US’s current GDP (or a consequence in two centuries that is 500 times the US’s current GDP), then what’s the “externality” of emitting carbon dioxide? It’s not the harm of global warming.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Karl, don’t confuse people who don’t understand discount rates with economics. They know what’s best for us all.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:02 pm
And you know that we aren’t fending off an even worse natural change because…?
Occam’s Razor.
You really believe this, don’t you? Have you read the bill?
No, but the CBO has, and I believe their analysis is as good as any we have.
If it goes back to consumers then why take it?
To put a price on emitting CO2, so people will seek efficient alternatives. It worked for sulphur dioxide.
How exactly do the poor come out ahead?
They get rebates.
How does a poor person come out ahead? By having the gov’t pay his utility bill?
Yes, with rebates.
How does a rich person who has his utility bill doubled come out at less than a dollar a day?
His utility bill isn’t doubled. See the CBO analysis.
If the point of W-M is to reduce carbon emissions, then the subsidies also in the plan (which were added in most cases to buy votes) undermine the whole plan by removing the price signals inherent in the plan.
No, they don’t. If your electricity bill is $50, and you get a $50 rebate, you still want to reduce your electricity use to $40 so you can pocket the $10. Similarly, if you are a coal-burning utility and have been handed $1B in carbon permits, you’re still motivated to reduce your CO2 emissions so you can sell the left-over carbon permits and pocket the proceeds.
Once again, neither Jim nor Duncan followed the links – there is no, nada, zip, zilch, nyet, nein correlation between CO2 and global temperatures.
I’m not a climate scientist, but most climate scientists think we’re facing a serious problem. If the IPCC reports are overstating the problem, we’ll know before the costs of reducing CO2 emissions are very high. If the IPCC reports are understating the problem, and we’ve done nothing, we’re in big trouble.
July 1st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Occam’s Razor.?
In other words, you don’t understand the meaning of that phrase.
…the CBO has, and I believe their analysis is as good as any we have.
How could they have analyzed a bill that didn’t even exist at the time it was voted on?
The administration said that if we passed their “stimulus” bill back in February, that unemployment wouldn’t go above eight percent.
How did that work out?
Why, in the face of that economically predictive disaster, do you still have faith in them on the effects of this bill, that no one has even read? Do you have any idea how insane you come across as? Or worse?
Are you a total naif? Or something else? Why should we not simply consider you a blind administration-defending troll, and nothing more?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Occam’s Razor.
I disagree. You have no knowledge (and have demonstrated your ignorance on numerous occasions) on which to make a judgment that one explanation is simpler than another. It’s worth noting that in Earth’s recent past, ice age climates were the norm and the current interglacial climates were unusual. In my view, neither an ice age nor significant global warming is actually all that threatening to the human race in the long run. But a glacial climate will result in less usable land on Earth than a much warmer climate would.
His utility bill isn’t doubled. See the CBO analysis.
We don’t believe the CBO analysis.
No, they don’t. If your electricity bill is $50, and you get a $50 rebate, you still want to reduce your electricity use to $40 so you can pocket the $10. Similarly, if you are a coal-burning utility and have been handed $1B in carbon permits, you’re still motivated to reduce your CO2 emissions so you can sell the left-over carbon permits and pocket the proceeds.
How about if the poor person’s rebate scales with their electricity bill? Then the incentive ceases to exist. That’s more likely to happen. Further, why do we care if an incentive exists or not? As I’ve repeatedly mentioned, there’s no evidence of significant harm from human-generated carbon dioxide nor do projections show any significant effect for a century or longer. You still haven’t shown the cap and trade is required.
Moving on, I gather there will somewhere around 30 billion tons of CO2 emitted this year. At $15 a year, we’re projecting that there will be harm on the order of 600 trillion USD (in 2009 dollars) in harm from global warming by 2109. I don’t buy it. My take is that the extravagant pork added to the cap and trade bills reflect that the politicians don’t either, no matter what the CBO says.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I love how people liike Jim spew out hte acidification of the Ocean by CO2 nonsense.
It shows me they don’t understand neither the logrithmic nature of the pH scale and how geometrically more difficult it becomes to move such a weakly acidified system (carbonic acid is a weak acid) when it is so heavioly buffered by dissolved carbonates. Not to mention the feedback loop caused by all the carbonate strata the ocean overlays that acts as a floor to acidification.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“The administration said that if we passed their “stimulus” bill back in February, that unemployment wouldn’t go above eight percent.”
Or how about the multitude of auto bailouts.
We had to keep them from going into bankruptcy, how’d that work out?
Really, why would anyone trust that *this* time the WH and congress won’t screw up?
July 1st, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Don’t believe this is not a tax on those making under $250,000 and 95% of Americans will not get taxed. Everything this bill touches will go down the FOOD chain. Gas, electricity, food, products and services. Everything will go up, but it’s not a tax on you. Not to mention man made climate change is a myth.
http://animal-farm.us/change/more-on-crap-trade-491
July 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
My prediction is that once the crap and trade bill is signed by the messiah that it will be an utter disaster for the US economy. This should be readily apparent to the voters by 2012. The people responsible will try to divert blame by saying they really didn’t get the climate bill they really wanted (had to compromise to get it passed) which is why it didn’t work. Thus it is really all the conservatives fault. Thus they need to be kept in power to fix all the problems. If the voters fall for it again then America truly does deserve everything it gets as a result.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:56 am
America may deserve what it gets, but what about us? We don’t deserve this crap. How did mature adult reasoning and responsibility get to be in such a minority. Ok, it’s always been in the minority but in the past it was somewhat persuasive.
Why does the truth not make any headway?
You can argue what the cost will be but you can’t argue there will be no cost. So how do you justify that cost when the Earth is cooling?
Even insanity has some loose foothold in reality… this is way beyond.
Perhaps we should discuss discount rates much slower this time.
I can only come to the conclusion given all that has occurred since January 20th that the destruction of America is intentional.
If we don’t defend this country in the midterm, we’d better consider how we *are* going to defend this country.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:31 am
Am I correct in assuming there are no provisions for payments to those who run schemes to fixate atmospheric CO2? It would make more sense to require producers of CO2 to purchase equal amounts of verified CO2 scrubbing services on some kind of exchange than to put some arbotrary price on it. Then at least markets could set prices and reward innovative schemes to reduce CO2. You’d almost think all this was just an excuse for more taxes. But that’s crazy talk.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:12 am
Ken, I live in California where the surrender of common sense and adult responsibility is nearly complete. Given what I’m seeing happen in this state (which has always been a belwhether for the rest of the country) it gives me very little hope for the US as a whole.
It really isn’t fair for those of us who still believe that personal responsibility is more than a reasonable price for personal liberty, but as I often tell my son — life isn’t fair, it just is what it is. I guess we’ll each have to ultimately chose to react to the reality we find ourselves in.
I have hope that this country will have an awakening before we descend completely down the path of tyrany, but my honest expectation is that won’t. Perhaps I’m just in a very pessimistic mood these days.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:51 am
The IPCC says: sudden climate change is dangerous, whether natural or man-made, and we should avoid activities that run a risk of causing sudden climate change.
Rand says: sudden climate change is dangerous, but we should not worry about possibly causing sudden climate change, because it might be the antidote to an occurrence of natural sudden climate change in the opposite direction.
One of these would be more pleasing to Occam.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 am
…sudden climate change is dangerous, whether natural or man-made, and we should avoid activities that run a risk of causing sudden climate change.
We don’t know what those activities are with sufficient certainty to justify wiping out trillions of dollars of future wealth. And I don’t care what the IPCC says–it is a political organization, not a scientific one. And even if it were a scientific one, it seems (like most proponents of the climate-change religion) to be wilfully ignorant of economics.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:11 am
How could they have analyzed a bill that didn’t even exist at the time it was voted on?
They didn’t, but the fundamentals of the bill have not changed since the analysis.
The administration said that if we passed their “stimulus” bill back in February, that unemployment wouldn’t go above eight percent. How did that work out?
That was a projection, not a promise, and it seems to have worked out fine: people who would otherwise be unemployed are working on ARRA projects. Given that unemployment is higher than forecast, the better question is whether the ARRA was enough.
How about if the poor person’s rebate scales with their electricity bill?
It doesn’t — why would you want to encourage people to use more electricity?
Do you have any idea how insane you come across as?
Well, I read some of the other comments here (e.g. about how Obama is intentionally destroying the country), and figure that if I seem as insane to you as these other commenters do to me, then I come across as pretty crazy!
But honestly, I don’t feel that crazy. You may be convinced that there’s a huge conspiracy behind the movement to restrict CO2 emissions. I’m not a big one for conspiracy theories, so I take the IPCC report as the best information we have to go on. You may be sure that Keynes was all wrong, and that stimulus spending can never do any good; I side with a more conventional view. I don’t defend these views because Obama has them; I defend them because in a world of uncertainty, and lacking in-depth personal expertise, I think they’re the mainstream views most likely to be correct. If that makes me crazy, I have plenty of company.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:18 am
I think they’re the mainstream views most likely to be correct.
Very few economists supported porkulus.
If that makes me crazy, I have plenty of company.
Of course you do. Most people are pig ignorant about economics.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
Let’s see if I have this right…a poor person has an (added) electric bill of $50, which is ameliorated by a $50 rebate. As a result, he reduced his electricity consumption in order to pocket an extra $10 (the idea being that if he cuts consumption, he gets to keep the same $50 rebate anyway), thus lowering consumption.
1) What if the recipient of this largess doesn’t go along with the program? After all, cutting electricity consumption entails some sacrifice, and our putative poor person might not wish to make such a sacrifice. What evidence do you offer, oh great believer in Occam, that the poor wont simply go on as before, thus generating little or no reduction in emissions?
2) This being the government, there is likely to be a considerable overhead involved in organizing and paying out these rebate checks, so we are talking about a rather large expense involved, as well as a brand new government bureaucracy created to administer it. Why do I think that this is the point of the whole exercise in the first place?
3) Exactly how do we determine how big a rebate each poor person gets, and how that might change over time? I see a huge opportunity for mischief making by various political groups, not to mention our charming government officials, who almost always seem to be immune from any reaon consequences for their action…
4) By the way, you claim that even though the CBO hadn’t seen the final bill, we shouldn’t worry because the overall structure of the bill is likely to be the same. Exactly how do you know this, and how are we to be convinced that the Dems haven’t inserted a few ‘gotchas’ in the bill (Kaptur’s little gift, for instance) at the last minute as they snuck it through? Lets be honest, there is little reason to submit a huge ammendment at the last minute (with almost no time for review) UNLESS you are trying to do precisely that…
As usual Jim, you made some ad hom statements, indulge in a bit of handwaving, and then pretend that you have made your case…you have not…
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:40 am
The IPCC says: sudden climate change is dangerous, whether natural or man-made, and we should avoid activities that run a risk of causing sudden climate change.
Typically flawed risk analysis. How big a risk are we speaking of here? How “sudden” is this climate change? My take is that when one looks at the details, there’s some legitimate concern in the IPCC report about climate “tipping points” (hidden positive feedback), but most of the threat is from effects centuries out. A risk of causing climate change, sudden or not, has to be balanced against what activity is causing this risk. We are building a global, technological society. In my view that benefit more than justifies the risk especially given that I don’t see the fossil fuel-based economy outlasting this century.
Once again, you have yet to demonstrate that doing something is better than doing nothing.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:47 am
Crazy people rarely do. And your attempts to characterize this board as one where the opinion that “Obama is intentionally destroying the country” (with no logical evidence presented) has any weight is pathetic.
What in the bloody-hell-that-is-your-mind is your point with all this inanity? To get fools like me to waste a minute of my time typing this? What’s our roi on that?
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:52 am
your attempts to characterize this board as one where the opinion that “Obama is intentionally destroying the country” (with no logical evidence presented) has any weight is pathetic.
Scroll up a bit to see ken anthony write:
I can only come to the conclusion given all that has occurred since January 20th that the destruction of America is intentional.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:56 am
That was a projection, not a promise, and it seems to have worked out fine: people who would otherwise be unemployed are working on ARRA projects. Given that unemployment is higher than forecast, the better question is whether the ARRA was enough.
A prediction made by employees of government acting in an official capacity in support of a particular policy or agenda is a promise. This is the same sort of thing as a smug Rumsfeld predicting that Iraqis would collectively welcome invading US troops with open arms.
And the question really is when will government stop inserting massive uncertainty into the business world? Let’s keep in mind a few of these sources of uncertainty. Government is voiding the rule of law as it concerns bankruptcy. A lender is even less certain that usual how much they’ll get back, if the borrower goes bankrupt. Government is capriciously bailing out some businesses and not others. At any time, a healthier business may be forced to buy out part or all of a failing business. Government passes spending measures like ARRA with hard to determine future effect. And of course, it looks like government is passes the most significant changes in regulation (eg, cap and trade carbon emissions) since the 60’s and 70’s, perhaps even since the creation of the Republic.
Growing unemployment is in my view a response to government action. You don’t want to be caught with too many employees, if government passes laws making it impossible to fire people. So is the timid lending climate. You don’t want to be caught lending money, if government nullifies your loans. Same goes for the decline in new businesses. You don’t want to be caught starting a new business, if government is going to make it impossible through an increased regulatory burden to continue that business.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 am
What evidence do you offer, oh great believer in Occam, that the poor wont simply go on as before, thus generating little or no reduction in emissions?
My example wasn’t very precise. A better one would be: a poor person has a $40 electric bill, and we expect cap-and-trade to raise it by $10. So we give the poor person a $10 rebate. If they do nothing, nothing changes. But they get a 25% greater benefit if they do reduce electric use, and pay a 25% greater penalty if they increase use. That pushes them towards conservation, and pushes their utility towards less-CO2-intensive sources of electricity.
This being the government, there is likely to be a considerable overhead involved in organizing and paying out these rebate checks
You’d be wrong. Medicare, which is much more complicated, spends under 2% in overhead.
By the way, you claim that even though the CBO hadn’t seen the final bill, we shouldn’t worry because the overall structure of the bill is likely to be the same.
You can worry all you want, but if you want to form a judgement about the bill, you need some sort of analysis, and the CBO report is the best one we have. The bill is not final yet — it will change, perhaps considerably, in the Senate. It’s an ugly process, but that’s true about any sort of law; it has nothing to do with cap and trade in particular. Looking back through history, a lot of important bills were passed with deals and favors that the participants wanted hidden (e.g. the Compromise of 1790).
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 am
As usual Jim, you made some ad hom statements
Such as?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 am
…it will change, perhaps considerably, in the Senate.
I hope that it will go to the Senate to die.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:17 am
A prediction made by employees of government acting in an official capacity in support of a particular policy or agenda is a promise.
So the NOAA breaks promises whenever a weather forecast is wrong?
Christina Romer is a renown, well-respected economist. She would have made the same projection whether she was the head of the Council of Economic Advisers or still an academic. She doesn’t have a crystal ball, but then neither does anyone else.
Growing unemployment is in my view a response to government action. You don’t want to be caught with too many employees, if government passes laws making it impossible to fire people. So is the timid lending climate. You don’t want to be caught lending money, if government nullifies your loans. Same goes for the decline in new businesses. You don’t want to be caught starting a new business, if government is going to make it impossible through an increased regulatory burden to continue that business.
This is a fantasy. There is no prospect of a law making it impossible to fire people. The government has not nullified any loans that would not have been nullified anyway — they’ve been guaranteeing debt, not wiping it out. If you were planning a new business that can not exist without sex discrimination in pay, or the ability to emit CO2 for free, then yes, you shouldn’t start that business. But you shouldn’t have started it last year either.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator. Business was bad before Obama took office, and we knew that unemployment was going to rise no matter what he did. Fear of government action is a scapegoat.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:23 am
So the NOAA breaks promises whenever a weather forecast is wrong?
NOAA doesn’t recommend policy actions to deal with the weather. What a nutty analogy.
…we knew that unemployment was going to rise no matter what he did.
That’s not what they and you said at the time. You (the inclusive you, since you are using the inclusive we) said that if we passed that legislative atrocity, it would cap at eight percent. Why should we believe them, or you, now?
It’s pretty obvious to those of us that do understand economics that we’re being led by charlatans and fools, to pay off their political allies and pauperize the rest.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Jim,
So if I am to understand you correctly, our putative poor person (PPP for future reference) has a $40 electric bill, gets a $10 rebate when the bill rises to $50 (how was this calculated, by the way? by whom?) so unless he decides to make some extra money by altering (likely downwards) his lifestyle, he has merely retained the status quo. You are thus depending upon the PPP to reduce their emissions (which they cannot control, unless you mean they will reduce their electricity consumption, a non-starter if you live – as I do – in an area with nuclear power) in order to increase their income? Given that PPP are typically low intensity emitters, they have less of a margin to play with, and thus are unlikely to be able to do this without significant lifestyle changes. Finally, the PPP are typically (not exclusively) composed of groups less likely to make changes in their lifestyles in order to achieve longer term benefits (which is why they are PPP in the first place), which further reduces the impact of your planned rebates…
What happens when ‘our betters’ discover that there is no discernable impact on emissions? Do we scale back the rebates? Ah yes…that won’t be a tax, just a withdrawal of rebates. Finally, how do we deal with the ‘hidden’ costs of W-M (since increasing emitter costs will essentially make anything manufactured in the US more expensive)?
You still haven’t answered my other questions, but if this is the best that you come up with, I don’t hold out much hope for useful replies. Why not just simply admit that this is a power grab, and stop trying to pretend that it will actually have much effect? Your ideological leanings support such a grab anyway…ashamed? Or perhaps it is simply that if us rubes figure out that this really is just a power grab we might not willingly go along with the program?
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:58 am
So the NOAA breaks promises whenever a weather forecast is wrong?
What policy or agenda is the NOAA supporting by making a weather forecast? Are they saying “Vote for this bill or we’ll see rain on Wednesday?”
Christina Romer is a renown, well-respected economist. She would have made the same projection whether she was the head of the Council of Economic Advisers or still an academic. She doesn’t have a crystal ball, but then neither does anyone else.
Interesting opinion. Incredibly gullible and naive, but interesting. Economists don’t take reputation hits when they lend their services to other parties. When everyone is a prostitute, prostitution no longer carries a stigma. Once again you seem blissfully unaware of conflicts of interest. The authors of the report have a considerable interest in reaching the conclusions that were reached.
July 2nd, 2009 at 11:55 am
NOAA doesn’t recommend policy actions to deal with the weather.
Are you kidding? Evacuation orders are based on NOAA forecasts.
You (the inclusive you, since you are using the inclusive we) said that if we passed that legislative atrocity, it would cap at eight percent.
No, “we” said that unemployment would peak higher without ARRA than with it, and that the best forecast showed it peaking at 8 percent with ARRA.
It’s pretty obvious to those of us that do understand economics that we’re being led by charlatans and fools
Do you honestly think that Christina Romer is a charlatan, or fool, and that you understand economics better than she does?
You are thus depending upon the PPP to reduce their emissions
No. As you note, poor people aren’t the major source of CO2 emissions, the rest of us are. The main features of the rebates are that 1) They don’t affect the incentive to reduce CO2 emissions, and 2) They keep Waxman-Markey from making poor people poorer.
Why not just simply admit that this is a power grab
Because it isn’t.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
[...] is to say, the cost of just about everything — by a hefty amount (the discussion over at Transterrestrial Musings suggests about 25%). Recent reports also suggest an unwillingness of international lenders to fund [...]
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Actually, the PPP are not the major emitters as individuals, but as a group, they are the overwhelming majority of the ‘problem’. Of course, I am not surprised that you cannot tell the difference between individuals and groups….
As for this not being a power grab, you haven’t given a viable alternative explanation. Even supporters of W-M acknowlege it will do little to reduce emissions, and as we have already demonstrated, the bill is structured to minimize whatever impact it might have as a result of the various accomodations made to get it passed in the first place. So..it won’t accomplish anything other than create a federal bureaucracy to move money around (inefficiently, the ‘2 % Medicare cost nonsense was debunked long ago’) and establish the basis for govt control over the economy (something that could have never been done in an open ballot)…yet you don’t see that this is a power grab?
Rand was right about you…more fool me to pretend that reason what sorthwhile…
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
My take is that when one looks at the details, there’s some legitimate concern in the IPCC report about climate “tipping points” (hidden positive feedback), but most of the threat is from effects centuries out.
The one I’d have the most concern about is increased outgassing from thawing permafrost. There’s 1.6 teratons of carbon in those soils, according to recently reported estimates, and especially if much of it comes out as methane the warming effect would be huge.
July 2nd, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I’m curious Jim, what do you do for a living? Most people here are involved in engineering or science oriented work. Work that creates skepticism about scientific claims. You seem to have no qualms about what the UN or Obama or the Goracle claim.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:51 am
Bill:
I’m a computer programmer, and own a small software company.
You seem to have no qualms about what the UN or Obama or the Goracle claim.
I don’t get information about climate change from Obama or Al Gore. Like me, they are non-scientists trying to make sense of what the scientists are saying.
I am well aware that scientific truth is not established by majority vote, and that the whole point of science is that its findings can be overturned by new evidence, better analysis, etc. I don’t believe in climate change as a religious truth that is immune from refutation.
That said, policy makers and voters need to make decisions in the presence of scientific uncertainty. It is pointless to wait until every last science PhD agrees about the effect of CO2 on global climate; even if we did, they might all still be wrong.
That’s why I think the IPCC process is important. It tries to summarize what the scientists are saying, and make the best policy recommendations possible given the evidence. It has issued multiple reports, and you can see how their recommendations have been influenced by new findings. If there is another summary of the state of climate change research that is more careful or authoritative, I am not aware of it.
The process of turning scientific findings into policy recommendations is ongoing. It will take decades for cap and trade legislation to have a major effect on our economy. While that is happening the scientists will continue to collect new data, refine their models, etc. If future reviews conclude that limiting CO2 is not as useful as we believe now, we can revise our cap and trade policies.
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Writing software requires the application of logic and not a small amount of the ability to think critically. From my perspective (officially Software Engineer, reality computer programmer) it is an endeavor that is as far removed from Community Organizer or Politician as possible. And yet you agree with them on this issue and do not see the stinkiness of what’s happening. I can’t put my finger on it, and I know there are countless others who are in our “industry” who come down on your side, but there seems to be something wrong there.
The IPCC is a political entity. It tries to obtain, and then maintain, a consensus. Over time that process, as history has taught us, inevitably veers away from science. To quote from their mandate: The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
If you’ve taken the time to read their reports and note, as you say, how they have been influenced by new findings, you certainly should have the time and capacity to read Carlins report.
There is no cap and trade legislation at this time. The W-M “bill” that was voted on did not exist as a printed document at that time, and so (for anyone who thinks critically) must be considered, at best, some kind of moving target. We don’t know what effect “cap and trade legislation” will have on our economy.
Although the W-M “bill” is a moving target, the parts of it that have been made public leave no doubt that its effect on global CO2 levels will be infinitesimal.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:24 am
And yet you agree with them on this issue and do not see the stinkiness of what’s happening.
Remember that the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the ban on CFCs, and the cap-and-trade system for sulphur dioxide were all strenuously opposed as unnecessary, expensive, and useless. They all were major successes, and cost much less than predicted. Maybe CO2 restrictions aren’t stinky.
you certainly should have the time and capacity to read Carlins report.
I’ve read the executive summary, and it is not impressive. I don’t expect a serious critique of the IPCC conclusions to use a National Review blog as a source, or to say things like “Global temperatures have declined — extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 1907-8 [sic].” It reads like a mishmash of arguments pulled from various sources, that aren’t even consistent with each other; all they have in common is that they dispute the prevailing view of climate change. There’s a joke about the lawyer who argues that his client’s dog did not bite the victim, and even if it did it wouldn’t hurt because the client’s dog doesn’t have any teeth, and furthermore, the client does not even have a dog. The Carlin report argues the same way: 1) it isn’t actually warming; 2) it is warming but warming isn’t bad because it won’t make hurricanes worse or melt the Greenland ice; 3) yes, it is warming but it’s the sun that’s doing it.
The EPA should not have told Carlin he couldn’t talk to the media about his report — government employees should be able to exercise their freedom to speak as private individuals. But I don’t see any reason why the report should have affected the EPA’s official findings about CO2.
Although the W-M “bill” is a moving target, the parts of it that have been made public leave no doubt that its effect on global CO2 levels will be infinitesimal.
I would support a bill that had greater effects, but figure this is the best we can get right now. Would you support a bill that made steeper cuts in CO2 emissions than W-M?
July 3rd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
When Jim alleged he owned a software company, I had a cheap knock-off of the notorious long ago post of Jim’s faux concern about Rand’s unemployment (the “I’m wondering about your healthcare” post). I think it was probably fortunate that my browser ate the resulting post so I couldn’t be banned from Transterrestrial.
Having said that, I wonder how Jim can run a software business yet not connect the consequences of his beliefs with the world he works in. Maybe he’s getting some good contracts from government and is effectively a well-paid government employee. In his defense, software is one business where CO2 emissions aren’t directly harmful.
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Karl, I think that you’re confusing “Jim” with “Jim Harris,” who seems to have ceased to troll here, for the most part. “Jim” continues to do so, however.
July 4th, 2009 at 6:15 am
Maybe he’s getting some good contracts from government and is effectively a well-paid government employee.
No, I’m not. We get occasional orders from government agencies, but I’d estimate that over 95% of our sales are to the private sector. In general I’d rather not sell to the government — they’re prone to asking me to fill out 10 pages of paperwork before placing a $25 order.
July 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
your attempts to characterize this board
This Jim is an example of what you do continuously (and I promise to point out such examples in the future.)
My opinion does not characterize this board.
July 4th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
My opinion does not characterize this board.
I mentioned your opinion as one example of an opinion I consider crazy. I never said it was characteristic of the board.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:16 am
I think we have a difference in world view here. For example,
Do you honestly think that Christina Romer is a charlatan
Yes, though perhaps a relatively honest one. I don’t need to speculate on whether I’m more knowledgeable than Romer is. She was destined to reach the conclusion that the ARRA would reduce unemployment. I can’t be bothered to figure out whether she lied or merely was heavily biased. But remarkably bad economic predictions made in order to support passage of a patron’s legislation would be an indication of lying rather than bias.
July 5th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Glancing back through the thread, I still don’t buy the NOAA example where the NOAA recommends evacuation. They aren’t recommending a government policy, they don’t have a conflict of interest, and they have a good track record of being right.