quote:The market will not have a solution to these problems. Therefore, non-market intervention needs to step up.
While I understand the sentiment, a gasoline tax or cap and trade system is getting the market to find a solution. All markets only exist in the context of their formal and informal structures, and a system that neglects to account for an externality is a bad market system. Fixing that isn't working against the market -- the particular arrangement of formal and informal rules that existed before the adjustment are not somehow "more pure" than the ones after, inherently. How market-oriented a set of rules are is determined by whether markets can operate under them with minimal externalities, not by whether or not they involve taxes.
I liked this post fugu, it was a very efficient summation of my feelings on the matter.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Bobby Gindhall loves sand barriers...he's been lobbying for them for a very long time.
Even if that were the case, you're accusing Gindhal of following Emanuel's motto. "Never let a crises go to waste".
Bobby Gindhall cares about his state but the federal government is slow to react. The best and most reactionary government is local government. We live in an upside down nation. Our founders intended a nation in which a town can trump the feds. The feds are only suppose to trump a town when it comes to individual rights. Federal law trumps state law. If the state law is constitutional, the feds have no position.
No, that is incorrect. You might as well pretend Shay's Rebellion never happened.
You need to realize something. Lets say you are exactly right about what the founders intended, (assuming we can homogenize them like that at all.) Let us also say that they created a government born out of that intention. The people had that government, so what did they do with it? Well first they tried things the Federalist way, and they didn't like it, so Thomas Jefferson got voted in. Political parties disappeared for a time and everybody was a Jeffersonian Democrat. That didn't work out too well so we see Whigs getting voted in, followed by Jacksonian Democrats. Then Lincoln Republicans. I could take the time to expand this all the way to the present but it's not very relevant to my point.
What is relevant is that originally if America had this State Government > Federal Government system, they surrendered it, because it wasn't working the way they wanted. We had a bloody civil war precisely because of this issue.
You can argue that we've gone too far in the federal direction, and I'd say the fact our entire history has been an almost unrelenting push towards giving the Federal government more power at the expense of the States gives you quite a fertile ground for that belief. But to argue that we need to just take everything back to the way things were when the constitution was formed is just foolish. It's essentially arguing that not one single improvement to our government was ever formulated since it was instituted. If that were true, that makes Americans the single worst group of people to ever try their hands at politics.
We had a civil war because some states ignored the constitution and the feds had to intervene. Slavery wasn't a "state's rights issue", just as the 2nd amendment isn't a state's rights issue. I have a right to bear arms and all men are created equal. The founders had it right. I doubt the feds would go to war with Illinois to protect gun rights but a president from Illinois went to war to protect individual rights. There is no "state's rights" that violate the constitution. States are the ultimate authority for things not spelled out in the constitution. The feds should intervene when a state is violating federal constitutional law. I don't believe in local anarchy. We do have federal protections and the federal government has an obligation to uphold federal law.
"Sanctuary Cities" like San Fransisco should be flooded by federal agents. Immigration is a federal issue. How can you have a "sanctuary city" without the feds coming down? I doubt you'd tolerate a slavery accepted sanctuary city. San Fran accepting illegal immigration is no different than another place accepting slavery. The feds should intervene in either case. The federal government should raid sanctuary cities for harboring illegal immigrants. They would do so for a city tolerating slavery. Both are under the pervue of the federal government.
posted
There's got to be some sort of a game at play here, like, you could call it Six Degrees of Malanthrop
Like secretly he's sitting at his computer thinking "Okay, how do I go from the BP oil spill to earnestly claiming that San Fransisco should be flooded by the feds for harboring the immigrants, in only six jumps ..."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
A city banning guns is no different than one tolerating slavery. African Americans have a right to be free and all Americans have a right to bear arms.
Even though we have a constitutional right to bear arms, the feds defer that right to the city. They won't do the same for slaves and they choose what laws they will enforce. A "sanctuary city" is a place to hide from federal law. The "sanctuary" is from the feds, only because the feds wont intervene. A city with slaves wouldn't be tolerated. A city that trumped the first amendment wouldn't be tolerated. They'll tolerate a city that ignores the second amendment. Why is there such an inconsistency?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:A city banning guns is no different than one tolerating slavery.
Well, that's a retarded way to look at it, even before you keep in mind that when the SCOTUS got put on the issue, they removed the former case as well as the latter.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: While I understand the sentiment, a gasoline tax or cap and trade system is getting the market to find a solution.
Okay. But isn't this impetus coming from "outside" the market? From someone saying "this market is not internalizing all the externalities, and we need to change that." I think my definition of market is not as wide as your definition of market.
quote:All markets only exist in the context of their formal and informal structures, and a system that neglects to account for an externality is a bad market system.
When you say formal and informal structures, what are you talking about? The laws and regulations? Or the social-political structures that exist as well? I have a problem with the current set-up because it is neglecting to account for many exernalities. If it can account for these, I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But isn't this impetus coming from "outside" the market?
A market does not operate properly without a framework of rules. For instance, markets operate badly if contracts are not enforced, if the power to police transgressions does not exist, or if property rights are not defined (note: there are many different kinds of property rights that can be defined). All of those arise "outside the market", yet we still (at least potentially) call the markets defined by their existence "free markets".
A sort of bizarre fetishism has arisen around certain market rules, but those market rules are not special. Ultimately, what makes a market free is that people, choosing to deal with others as they see best within the constraints of the rules, lead to near-optimal outcomes. If a 'market' does not have that condition, and there is a way to bring it back into alignment without removing the fundamental characteristic of choice (and even that could be argued to merely be an arbitrary market rule that it just happens to be impossible to operate a market efficiently without), then taking that action is, in a very important sense, making the market a better market.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay. But isn't this impetus coming from "outside" the market? From someone saying "this market is not internalizing all the externalities, and we need to change that." I think my definition of market is not as wide as your definition of market.
Solving the problem requires economic pressures be brought to bear upon the private sector. For the purposes of getting the problem solved, it doesn't really matter where the pressure comes from, so long as it exists. If there suddenly evolved a species like the 'graboids' from Tremors that feasted upon fossil fuels below the Earth's surface, the pressures would still (probably) do the trick.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you really think consumers/citizens will care enough to force these changes?
Yes, I do.
I think it's a bad idea for the government to blindly pass any more laws because of the threat of global warming, since there's no clear evidence of what will or will not reverse the problem in time. Cap and Trade has the potential to fail on so many levels, not including its potential for fraud. Under the best of circumstances, it'll take years for any feasible changes, and the economic cost is dire.
This is why I'd rather see a cultural driven change, one that doesn't collapse the worldwide economy but slowly changes the way we treat the environment (you know, in case the problem isn't as severe or as immediate as we think). Because while global warming may never amount to more than a horror story, a global economic meltdown could quickly become a horrific reality.
quote:From fugu13: While I understand the sentiment, a gasoline tax or cap and trade system is getting the market to find a solution.
Businesses will just pass the cost onto consumers. Cap and Trade will merely increase the cost of energy.
And the cost of energy has already skyrocketed. If the economy recovers, it'll skyrocket even more. There is already an impetus to change, to stop wasting energy, to find a clean, renewable, safe alternative to oil.
Cap and Trade, or any kind of energy tax, is overkill.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cap and trade has already been wildly successful in broad use. You might be familiar with the huge drop in acid rain falling over the US? Most of that drop was due to an extremely effective cap and trade program with extensive industry participation.
And yes, the point is to increase the costs of polluting activities. That is the most economically efficient way to dissuade people from engaging in them. We have plenty of data that shows that people use things a lot when they are cheap, and less when they are expensive. We have almost no examples of things (that can't be easily eliminated from daily life, especially) where "culture change" led people to use them a lot less without someone increasing the price (hint: all that European culture that involves consuming gas less is heavily assisted by large gasoline taxes).
Furthermore, part of the point of cap and trade is to make it easier for people to take the cheapest routes to reduce pollution. Imagine two people each have five permits, and are both polluting seven units. There need to be four fewer units of pollution between them, by cap and trade. It costs the first person $10,000 to reduce a unit of pollution, and it costs the second person $5,000 (in reality, the cost to reduce would increase with further units of pollution, but we'll ignore that -- the example works anyways). In cap and trade, the second person will sell four permits to the first person for somewhere between $10k and $5k, reducing pollution by the requisite four units at an economic cost of $20k, total (since that's how much is spent to reduce the pollution -- in reality, its even less than that, but by the same amount in this scenario and the next I'm going to relate). Now imagine we just tell each place they have to reduce their emissions by two units, and they do. That's an economic cost of $30k (two units @ $10k, two units @ $5k). Cap and trade will have lead to the most efficient outcome (note: a carbon tax should have the same first order effects, but I strongly believe that enforcement, transition, and efficiency will all be better under cap and trade).
quote:And the cost of energy has already skyrocketed. If the economy recovers, it'll skyrocket even more. There is already an impetus to change, to stop wasting energy, to find a clean, renewable, safe alternative to oil.
Cap and Trade, or any kind of energy tax, is overkill.
So your assertion is that carbon is already perfectly priced by the actions of society, and doesn't lead to more environmental damage to others than its price reveals? To put it mildly, you're ignoring the science.
I'll quote an excellent explanation of why environmental economics exists to illustrate why maybe, just maybe, you might be missing something:
quote:I can throw away biodegradable coffee grounds and a non-biodegradable, poisonous chemical-laden, broken, and useless cell phone and battery for the same price: $0.
I think it's a bad idea for the government to blindly pass any more laws because of the threat of global warming.
Because paying people who want to kill us billions of dollars a year is such a great idea, right? Because breathing the particulate matter and gases from diesel and coal combustion is so healthy, right? Because oil spills are so great for the fishing industry, right? Because coal mining is so safe, and coal companies always have their workers' safety as their #1 priority, right? Because the regulators and legislators who are supposed to protect the public from safety and environmental issues aren't bought and paid for, right?
Just in case you want to know which of my questions is most important to answer, go in order, first to last.
I find it cosmically entertaining that it's the VERY SAME people who want to protect Big Oil who also love the military-industrial complex. It's like, on some level, they actually realize that it doesn't work to hate the first and love the second, or vice versa. They don't really know why, but they sense it. I'm not even talking about ideology, I'm talking about how the two feed off each other. They wouldn't exist to nearly the same degree in today's world without each other. It amazes and entertains me, how their supporters are always the same people, while almost none of those people realize just how dependent those two are on the existence of the other. Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone watching the Tony Hayward prosecution...I mean questioning, in the House?
His responses make me thing one of two things are going on here (or both): Hayward is a broken man, and it shows, or he has utter contempt for the committee, and refuses to seriously engage.
I will say though that, despite the fact that I'm slightly annoyed by what looks like a CEO who doesn't give a crap, I think the Committee looks pretty rude for continually interrupting him. If you want him to answer a question, let him answer, if you just want to talk over him, then does he really need to be there for anything other than to show that you're grilling him for political purposes?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Even John Boehner had the sense to tell Barton off immediately. Was Barton thinking if he did that off the bat the rest of the Republicans would all fly to his defense if the Democrats got angry?
Then to immediately retract his apology and his assertion that the 20 billion dollar fund is a shakedown. It's like Barton thought, "Heh...it would be way funny if I said something like this, I can always retract later and it will be as if I never said it."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, it Barton had moonwalked out of that any faster, there would have been a congressman shaped hole in the wall.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Is it permissible for a judge to get royalties from an industry that they also suppose to adjudicate?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Anyone watching the Tony Hayward prosecution...I mean questioning, in the House?
His responses make me thing one of two things are going on here (or both): Hayward is a broken man, and it shows, or he has utter contempt for the committee, and refuses to seriously engage.
I will say though that, despite the fact that I'm slightly annoyed by what looks like a CEO who doesn't give a crap, I think the Committee looks pretty rude for continually interrupting him. If you want him to answer a question, let him answer, if you just want to talk over him, then does he really need to be there for anything other than to show that you're grilling him for political purposes?
CNN collected responses from several British media outlets. They generally echo one or both of your two points: Hayward seemed reticent and removed ("like a tired undertaker who was rather bored with having to look mournful" according to The Daily Telegraph), and the haranguing of the congressmen was savage and abusive (presumably with the exception of Joe Barton).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Oil is only 20% of America's energy, the rest is coal. The oil spill is an "opportunity" to tax the other 80% in the name of oil.
With this administration, everything is an emergency, everything is a crisis. Health care, bailouts, stimulus, on and on. Crisis pass law and now the pay czar is in charge of the $20 Billion BP dollar Obama shake down. BP handed over that money to Obama's "Pay Czar"...will that money go to people who were put out of work or people who were out of work prior to this crisis.
Not too far out from an administration who would refuse international assistance for the gulf spill to protect the unions. Even Bush immediately exempted the Jone's Act for Katrina, in order to accept international assistance. (sorry no link, google Jone's act yourself)
Unions rule all. Union leaders are Obama's #1 consideration. Teachers unions are more important than failing students and foreign oil spill assistance is less than union spill jobs. Lets see where the $20 Billion BP extortion dollars go.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
mal, I am regularly fascinated by your brain. You're the kind of person who could look at a painting by Georgia O'Keefe and say, "You know, that reminds me of the Nazis. Therefore, spaghetti!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
mal, for the love of all things sane, use facts if you're going to post. I try not to engage you; you're qualitative arguments are off-the-wall convoluted sometimes. But it's hard for me to let quantitative arguments of yours go without correction.
quote:Oil is only 20% of America's energy, the rest is coal. The oil spill is an "opportunity" to tax the other 80% in the name of oil.
posted
It's obvious that Big Brother is on to mal, and constantly edits his posts to hide the truth from the rest of us.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand the frustration with Mal. It has been obvious for quite some time that Mal propagates a narrative and not arguments. I imagine it comes from his consumption of talk-radio.
Look at Rush: he is a narrative maker and narratives are like waves. Sure you can win specific arguments, but it is like throwing rocks at water. Sure the rock wins, but the wave keeps washing across the shore changing the landscape.
The sad thing is narratives are VERY effective and Rush is like a tsunami. Sometimes it's tough for me to remain a fiscal conservative. Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I just hold onto the hope that facts and data can change minds. Call me overly optimistic.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So your assertion is that carbon is already perfectly priced by the actions of society, and doesn't lead to more environmental damage to others than its price reveals? To put it mildly, you're ignoring the science.
My assertion is that the price of energy is already high and will go higher if the worldwide economy recovers.
Add Cap and Trade into the equation, and you have a potential disaster. Most people's paychecks aren't keeping pace with the cost of energy as it is. If gasoline hits $6 a gallon or more, the cost of everything will be inflated beyond what people can afford.
If you push this too far, you will effectively fail at everything you're aiming for. Impoverished countries do not make protecting the environment their priority. Jobless people, who can't heat their homes or feed their families, don't give a rat's backside about global warming.
steven, if you're point is that you'd like to find a clean, renewable form of energy, I don't have an argument against that. I just disagree with the methods of getting there.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Add Cap and Trade into the equation, and you have a potential disaster. Most people's paychecks aren't keeping pace with the cost of energy as it is. If gasoline hits $6 a gallon or more, the cost of everything will be inflated beyond what people can afford.
You should let Europe and Japan know. After all, that's already the sort of level they pay for gas. Despite in many cases having lower paychecks, they manage.
The practical evidence is clear: more expensive carbon emissions is economically viable. Indeed, if the true costs of higher carbon emissions are anywhere near what is estimated, not having more expensive carbon emissions is what will doom the economy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You should let Europe and Japan know. After all, that's already the sort of level they pay for gas. Despite in many cases having lower paychecks, they manage.
The practical evidence is clear: more expensive carbon emissions is economically viable. Indeed, if the true costs of higher carbon emissions are anywhere near what is estimated, not having more expensive carbon emissions is what will doom the economy.
the US isnt europe or japan.
all the europeans i know drive less because obtaining a driving permit, among other reasons, costs alot, many major highways require a toll fare, the vehicles are expensive, maintainece is expensive, auto insurance is expensive and, the factor which has perhaps the greatest effect on ones driving habits and results in driving less, is that everything in europe (and japan) is closer. its a matter of scale. from the city level to the national level, americans tend to be much more spread out.
and you said 'economically viable'. could you expound upon that?
as an example question, i offer this: to what degree should an environmental law be allowed to dictate the economic situations and decisions of the affected citizens, especially considering the citizens are forced to comply?
but you can take it any direction you like.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: If gasoline hits $6 a gallon or more, the cost of everything will be inflated beyond what people can afford.
Since, clearly, people already subject to similar rates for gasoline manage to buy large numbers of things, your statement at best requires significant justification as applied to the US. Far, far more likely is that the US would adjust to the higher gas prices in various ways, just like other countries have. You're the one who is asserting the US will somehow be doomed by situation that already exists elsewhere without even light showers of doom.
quote:as an example question, i offer this: to what degree should an environmental law be allowed to dictate the economic situations and decisions of the affected citizens, especially considering the citizens are forced to comply?
To exactly the extent that the 'environmental law' corrects for externalities. So long as major carbon-related externalities exist, the US is losing money. By instituting programs that correct for those externalities, such inefficiencies are reduced.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: [QB] [QUOTE]Add Cap and Trade into the equation, and you have a potential disaster. Most people's paychecks aren't keeping pace with the cost of energy as it is. If gasoline hits $6 a gallon or more, the cost of everything will be inflated beyond what people can afford.
You should let Europe and Japan know. After all, that's already the sort of level they pay for gas. Despite in many cases hav
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The European continent is not in the best economic health right now. Mimicking their failing policies is a bit like jumping off a cliff because the sheep in front of you did.
Also, consider the lack of public transportation in the U.S. compared to Europe/Japan. Consider the difference in landmass, climate, resources, shipping, and transport. It's not quite an accurate comparison, even if, say, Cap and Trade had a sterling record of strengthening the economy.
Another problems is that a direct effect of Cap and Trade will be a spike in energy costs, which will likely affect the poor more than those who can afford energy efficient cars and homes.
I can only guess that this intended side effect will be cured via energy vouchers. So more government spending aimed at mopping up bad policy.
quote:So long as major carbon-related externalities exist, the US is losing money. By instituting programs that correct for those externalities, such inefficiencies are reduced.
Barring the implementation of a government imposed fine/tax on carbon, how does carbon reduction decrease the operating costs of industry in the U.S.?
I've read a little about the "public cost of greenhouse gases," but that seems a bit arbitrary to me.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How come when we raise the cost of anything to an industry, the industry responds "Don't do that. We'll just pass the cost straight to our consumers by raising prices", yet when the costs are given directly to the consumer, the workers don't respond, "Don't do that. We'll just pass the cost straight to our employers by demanding more money."
Sure, you can't go to your boss and say "I need a 20% increase in pay to cover growing health care and gas prices" and expect the boss to agree, or to continue hiring you. On the other hand you can't go to the consumer and say "I'm raising your price 20% because to cover growing health care and gas prices" and expect them to agree, or continue as your customers when the power of the market means your competitor decides a lower margin is worth gaining your market share.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So long as major carbon-related externalities exist, the US is losing money. By instituting programs that correct for those externalities, such inefficiencies are reduced.
Barring the implementation of a government imposed fine/tax on carbon, how does carbon reduction decrease the operating costs of industry in the U.S.?
I've read a little about the "public cost of greenhouse gases," but that seems a bit arbitrary to me.
You have a disconnect here. The "U.S. losing money" does not match with "decreasing the operating costs of industry in the U.S." I think you need to read up a little on the costs (i.e. externalities); me thinks you'd be surprised.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand correctly, using this method: Generic Industry A. causes pollution. An increase in asthma-related hospitalizations near Generic Industry A. Hence, Generic Industry A is increasing the cost of healthcare in the city/county/state where it exists.
Hence, industry = increase cost of healthcare.
But it's a general idea associated with a specific problem that doesn't take into account a thousand different variables--is the industry causing asthma problems or was it the spike in population associated with workers who came to work there? Consider potential over-crowding, more cars on the road, more paved roads, and unsanitary living conditions.
It may very well be Generic Industry A that's causing the problem. But Generic Industry B three states over may being doing no harm at all.
The idea of "environmental externalities" doesn't seem like an exact science quite yet.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, that's because (IMO) you haven't studied it enough.
There are tons of examples. Off the top of my head:
1. Americans eat a lot of meat. Meat demand increases. Meat grown in other countries gets shipped into the U.S. (Also, replace meat with corn, rice, wheat, whatever) Developing countries without strict regulations start to cut down forests to harvest more meat. Globally, forests are cut down in part because of American's love for meat.
2. In Europe, coal gets a bad rap. European coal industry shrinks. At times, energy is needed from other sources. China, with plenty of coal sources (with coal mined and shipped up from Australia), fills this demand. European preference for "green energy" causes increased emissions in Asia, which pollutes Asia, the Pacific, and the U.S.
3. Americans like to drive their cars. Any suggestion that they try and take more public transportation is met by viscous criticism. Oil demand increases. Automobile demand increases. Demand for cheap oil, cheap metals, cheap production causes repercussions all over the world: mining in South America increases, oil in the Middle East is in higher demand. Asphalt and concrete roads need to be constantly maintained, requiring raw materials from within and without the U.S. Poor people in developing countries start to work for poor wages to satisfy the demands of the American people.
You're example may be true, but it's too specific. It's requiring connections that are filled with uncertainty. You say that "the idea of 'environmental externalities' doesn't seem like an exact science," and that's the problem. It's not exact. There are tremendous uncertainties. Just because there are uncertainties doesn't mean that the repercussions are not there. Qualitatively, these three examples (or similar examples) are occurring all over the world. The exact quantification may not be known, but that doesn't mean we can't see them.
You're making the assumption that we need to fully understand the connections before we make a decision to change. I say that we could be more cautious, and consider the potential repercussions before we make the decision to charge blindly (and IMO arrogantly) forward.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I forget who it was complaining about the coast guard stopping state ships to inspect them for safety. But there we are, a good reason to inspect for safety.
posted
As a point of interest, in Norway the price of gas is about 8 dollars a gallon, and you can't say the cities are close together. There's a lot of unsettled wilderness. People somehow get along anyway.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much of that unsettled wilderness is habitable, or should I say comparably habitable to the current settlements, would you say? I really have no idea one way or another, not having much of a mental image of Norway's geography.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Judging by the some of the things a few of you have typed, we should all just live in tents in the middle of the wilderness eating nothing but vegan food.
Comparing the US to Japan and Europe? Come on. Japan's land mass is smaller compared to the US, and mass transportation is available to the largest populated areas. Europe has a thriving high speed rail system, the US does not.
Liberals and Conservatives alike want oil to be around for a long time. If you think otherwise you are fooling yourself. The government makes billions upon billions of dollars on gasoline taxes. Forcing regulation like Cap and Trade raises those taxes even more, forcing Americans to pay higher taxes. The way I see it, it is an indirect tax on my paycheck.
People will still need to drive. Where I live (Las Vegas) there is no good mass transit system. We do not have subways. We have a bus system that is clean (All of the vehicles run on natural gas) but is uttery inefficient.
There are ways to get people to help the environment without punishing them to do it. And don't say it isn't punishing or say you are simply "encouraging" them. Its a tax.
If there already were a valid, high quality source of alternate energy, I'd say go for it. But you don't put Cap and Trade in place when there is no valid alternative in hopes that this will somehow force the private sector to somehow come up with a fuel source that can be used on a daily basis in millions of vehicles. Right now its more "Bait and Switch" than "Cap and Trade."
Give me a nuclear powered vehicle, and THEN you can tax the hell out of oil for all I care.
Better yet, just give me a trash eating Delorean already. As long as it can hit 88 mph.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are ways to get people to help the environment without punishing them to do it. And don't say it isn't punishing or say you are simply "encouraging" them. Its a tax.
Could you list the ways? Note: mandates (such as minimum gas mileage) cost people more than pigovian taxes, they're just much less obvious.
quote:Give me a nuclear powered vehicle, and THEN you can tax the hell out of oil for all I care.
You're rather putting the cart before the horse. As long as gasoline is cheap it doesn't make sense to put significant effort into more environmentally friendly vehicles, because no one would buy one. A reasonable level of cap and trade would make current hybrid and electric vehicles, that already exist, much, much appealing relative to gasoline powered vehicles, and lead to a huge upswing in their usage. They exist, but they're not very popular (except among people already buying fuel-efficient cars!), because they're expensive.
In fact, if your area uses nuclear power, you've already been given the nuclear powered vehicle: an electric car. Why haven't you bought one?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say I find it a bit unusual that people can be so casual about dismissing the massive amounts of damage that we continue to do to our enivornment. Global warming aside, issues such as soil salination, lack of clean fresh water, rising levels of heavy metals and chemicals in the food supply, any number of poor agricultural practices ( which I suppose would include soil salination), air pollution, and the rising population against the general unliklihood that resources and production can continue to meet demand. Basically we are trading in long-term growth for a quick fix on the hopes that we can continue to adapt to the situation without some kind of global crisis. Doing so, even if the probability of us failing to adapt is amazingly low, means that it will eventually occur unless human beings take charge of the situation. Would you trade your kids in for a high-consumption lifestyle?
I would also ask that anyone who thinks a completely free market system is somehow superior to take a look at economic growth during the 1800s compared to the last century. 1800s are full of extreme up and down spikes, whereas the last century has been much smoother. That and a major externality not taken care of by the free market system, the human cost. That and I find cap and trade to be a much better fit for a free market sysem than say simply subsidizing everything. Guess what, in the end the tax payer, which really just means everyone, has to pay. You just really can't get around that fact.
However, I will be honest. Looking at the nature of our problems today there is a fairly good chance that we simply won't answer the question fully until we have paid a staggering human price for ignoring so many issues for so long.
That and if you want to "reward" people to get onto mass transit you have to spend money. Spending money means taxing people. Either way you are going to have to "punish" the populace. Punish being used extremely inappropriately there. In that sense a diet is punishment, or excercise to lose weight is punishment. Doing anything that requires will, effort, and sweat must then be punishment.
The whole idea of cap and trade is not simply to push people to adopt renewable energy sources etc. It is to instill a demand in the market for said energy source, which would help fund private research and development into those sources etc.
Balancing the budget, totally punishment.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quick article about how Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is still refusing to support a light-rail system that could be built between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. My mind boggles at the number of cars this would take off the road. I know he's got his hands full at the moment but he's been fighting this for awhile. Its the right choice for the people of this region if Jindal would get off his tea-party high horse and take the federal money.
posted
Speaking of oil spills, has anyone heard of the Red Sea oil spill? I heard about it today for the first time in our local paper as a small little side story saying it has restarted after people thought it was contained.
quote: Government spokesman Magdy Rady told the state news agency Monday that the spill, which began last week, was "limited" and has now largely been contained. It was one of the first government acknowledgments that the spill was even taking place.
An environmental group based in the Red Sea resort town of Hurghada told the Associated Press that the government was trying to cover up the extent of the damage and the leak had restarted.
quote:The northern islands protected area is very heavily impacted," said el-Droubi. "This area is very important because it is the last pristine spot, there is a lot of sea life there that will be harmed ... there are dead birds and dead sea turtles scattered across the island covered in oil."
Oil company officials in the port city of Suez said the spill was caused by a leak from an offshore oil platform in Jebel al-Zayt north of Hurghada and has polluted about 100 miles (160 kilometers) of coastline including tourist beach resorts.
quote:Gulf oil spill: White House blocked and put spin on scientists' warnings
Investigative report into the BP oil spill reveals US government blocked scientists model data two weeks after the rig explosion ... The report amplifies scathing criticism last week by the commission's co-chairs, Bob Graham and William Reilly, of the Obama administration's handling of the disaster.
It goes on to catalogue other lapses by the administration, including repeated underestimates of the size of the spill, and downplaying the environmental damage after the BP well was capped.
The report found particular fault with the White House energy adviser, Carol Browner, who appeared on television on 4 August and said: "The vast majority of oil was gone."
It said Browner was overstating the findings of a NOAA analysis of the fate of the oil.
"By initially underestimating the amount of oil flow and then, at the end of the summer, appearing to underestimate the amount of oil remaining in the Gulf, the federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem," the report said.
posted
It seems strange to say the government was intentionally underestimating, when BP was underestimating it in their reports as well.
I fully expected there was much more oil coming out than was being reported so as to reduce the amount of wigging out people would do.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government wasn't intentionally underestimating. They were lying. The NOAA's reports were accurate or rather much higher than what was released by the government and BP. The political people quashed these reports and released numbers that they knew their experts thought were very inaccurate.
This is another item for the "ways in which the Obama administration is adopting the worst aspects of the Bush administration" folder.
posted
MrSquicky: To me "intentionally underestimating" is synonymous with lying. I meant that they knew there were higher amount of oil in the gulf, and intentionally reported lower numbers so as to reduce the impact when people heard about it in the news.
I'm completely agree it was wrong to do so, I meant more it seemed like everybody overseeing the disaster was lying so as to save their jobs.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, I get what you were saying. It sounded way too soft to me, but I think we were getting at the same thing.
I see the government as lying to cover for BP, the company. Yeah, the MMS was majorly screwed up. This was known since the Bush administration when they intentionally screwed it up. And yeah, they had a motivation to lie.
But the White House I don't see as having that motivation. Sure, they should have reformed the mess that the Bush administration intentionally created, but it's hard to really lay that at their door. To me, their suppression of the accurate information me goes in line with their cession of the spill site to BP as bending over backwards to accommodate a bad actor, which, and I don't think this is a coincidence, was a major donor to President Obama's political campaign.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
