Congress: Ludicrous Speed, GO!
mrdobalina
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
One thing I don't think the GOP ever learned was that when you control both houses and the presidency, you can kinda get more things done. Congressional Democrats, in coordination with the Obama administration, actually seem to understand this (to their credit), and have been running at a breakneck speed since January.
Currently on the table: Global Warming, aka Cap and Trade, aka the Waxman bill.
At 1200+ pages, it's a monster piece of legislation that poises to remake a large part of the nation's energy industry, as well as costing gazillions of dollars.
Speaker Pelosi "has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation. "
CBO estimates show a raising of direct energy costs to consumers of $175 a year. The CBO estimates production costs to go up to $770 per household (presumable the goverment eats the extra cost in subsidies for low-income households?). Other estimates that look at broader implications and multi-year estimates peg the increase in excess of $1200 per year.
Part of the concern over the CBOs estimates are summarized here (emphasis mine):
All this comes at a time when man-made global warming faces increased skepticism, and data begins to mount that there's been no increase in temperatures since 2001.
Considering the problems encountered with the stimulus spending and incorrect unemployment assumptions (not to mention the admission by several politicians that they didn't have the time to read the bill), I've got concerns that Democrats are using their majority status to push through bills that haven't been read, studied or properly thought through.
Stimulus, Global Warming and Healthcare are all "pass now or the world will end" topics...but why?
Some of the news sources I've recently seen on this:
Currently on the table: Global Warming, aka Cap and Trade, aka the Waxman bill.
At 1200+ pages, it's a monster piece of legislation that poises to remake a large part of the nation's energy industry, as well as costing gazillions of dollars.
Speaker Pelosi "has pledged to get the legislation passed before lawmakers leave on their July 4 vacation. "
CBO estimates show a raising of direct energy costs to consumers of $175 a year. The CBO estimates production costs to go up to $770 per household (presumable the goverment eats the extra cost in subsidies for low-income households?). Other estimates that look at broader implications and multi-year estimates peg the increase in excess of $1200 per year.
Part of the concern over the CBOs estimates are summarized here (emphasis mine):
[T]he CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.
To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.
The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."
All this comes at a time when man-made global warming faces increased skepticism, and data begins to mount that there's been no increase in temperatures since 2001.
Considering the problems encountered with the stimulus spending and incorrect unemployment assumptions (not to mention the admission by several politicians that they didn't have the time to read the bill), I've got concerns that Democrats are using their majority status to push through bills that haven't been read, studied or properly thought through.
Stimulus, Global Warming and Healthcare are all "pass now or the world will end" topics...but why?
Some of the news sources I've recently seen on this:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D992F2QO0&show_article=1
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINN2632512820090626?sp=true
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2450.cfm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINN2632512820090626?sp=true
http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm2450.cfm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588837560750781.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
mrdobalina on
0
Posts
http://www.congressmatters.com/
but they're listening to every word I say
I don't think you understand how slowly things usually work.
One thing the Democrats seemed to learn from the Bush administration was fear mongering. They also seem to have paid a lot of attention to Roosevelt's First 100 Days where he basically skullfucked the entire country by pushing out policy at a rate akin to throwing dogshit into the back of a fan.
Everything is now "DO IT NOW! GET IN THE CHOPPAH!".
Nevermind the fact this legislation will (almost admittedly by the President himself) result in crippling energy prices, passed straight on to John Q. Average. We need to save the world!
Oh, and never mind that business getting rich off of other businesses by passing around these genius carbon credits doesn't actually do anything to stop pollution.
Oh... and the fact that China will consume as much energy as the entire world does today within two decades, regardless of how much bullshit legislation we pass.
Do we need to find better and cleaner energy sources? Absolutely... but how the fuck is Business A paying Business B to allow them to continue polluting going to help?
Edit: It's also awesome they're doing this on a Friday afternoon before their big vacation, where it will be pushed out of the news cycle by Monday.
Increased skepticism? I thought it was more accepted now than ever and the only skeptics are the hardcore people that refuse to let go.
but they're listening to every word I say
No, I get it. Maybe I am more pissed at the system than the particular party. However, it does seem that they are unwilling to go the distance for us in some ways. Even now, with the filibuster proof majority they seem to not push hard enough. Truly transformative presidencies are the ones that push for change hard and don't hold back. FDR, Reagan.
but they're listening to every word I say
and sullivan:
That said: Really? There are global warming skeptics left? Yeah, China's going to out pollute the entire world soon enough, but that's not an excuse to ignore the problem locally.
Cap and Trade doesn't actually solve the problem. It's just a tax on businesses and energy that will be passed onto the consumer.
Cap and trade appropriately harnesses the free market to push companies that reduce pollution. It is an easy way to effectively reward reductions and punish polluters.
but they're listening to every word I say
that's actually not how it works.
More accurately, it's aimed at skyrocketing energy prices to the point where we are forced to stop using "evil" sources of energy. That's fine if there is a viable alternative source. We don't have one yet.
The ones we do have lack infrastructure... which would be a much better way to spend public money.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
The big concern is what they're pushing. No matter what side of the fence you are on, allowing a political party to shove through legislation without proper condsideration is kind of dangerous. If you think the Democrats are in the right to do this, ask yourself how you would have felt if the GOP actually had their shit together and passed a bunch of far-right legislation.
At best we'd have a system where Congress flips every two-four years and spends their time undoing the damage the other party did before them.
The President has a right to use the bully pulpit and make a case for rapid, sweeping change. Congress has the responsibility to deliberate and discuss what that means and how it will impact us.
If my energy bill jumps by $100 a month, that means I will cut something else out of my budget that could have helped someone keep their job. That's serious, especially when some predictions seem to land that this bill will drop the global temp by 0.2 degrees over the next 100 years. China, India, and Russia aren't going to follow suit on this.
Oh and hey, while all this is going on, and unemployment is rising, and here in California they are about to shut the fucking state down...North Korea is positioning to potentially fire a missile at Hawaii. I WANT TO RETIRE IN HAWAII, PLS DONT BLOW IT UP THX.
Jebus, 90% of that wasn't specifically in reponse to what you said. I'm just ranting.
I'm pretty sure the goal is to slowly increase the price of energy to encourage energy companies to explore alternative sources and improve their infrastructure. Not set the price to "absurd" at noon tomorrow and have everyone deal with it.
The price of energy should increase based on demand, not based on government policy.
If the government wants better energy, it needs to invest in better energy. The reason business hasn't invested in new technology on a mass scale is due to government constantly changing its mind on what the "next big thing" will be.
GM has had a design for a Hydrogen-Cell car since the 60s. The problem is no infrastructure. You want public works jobs? There's a shit ton of fueling stations that could be built.
Alternatively, lower the max amount of credits given at any given time under cap and trade such that there are a lower number of emissions credits running around to sell/buy, thus increasing their price by free market mechanisms. Don't even have to have the government setting the price.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
There are plenty of viable sources of energy if we do it right. Wind power, micro wind, solar, more localized distribution, use reduction.
??? It isn't an expenditure. So I don't know what you mean by it would be a better way to spend public money.
also, prove that it would skyrocket energy prices.
Cap and trade will punish the people that pass on the extra costs to consumers. They will go out of business or change. The ones that do produce less pollution will gain a market edge.
but they're listening to every word I say
North Korea would never, EVER actually fire on Hawaii. EVER. They're a little kid throwing a goddamned tantrum when we stop acting like they're scary and powerful.
Is this what happens in parliamentary systems...?
but they're listening to every word I say
It's sad that signing five bills into law is considered breakneck speed.
Hyperbole is fun. I'm glad you noted that the "gazillions of dollars" are going to be a revenue stream for the government. Hey, I thought Republicans were very concerned about the deficit. Here's a way to reduce the deficit! Surely you're for it?
Some of us think that it's about time that everyone paid the true costs for our way of life. We've been running up debt environmentally, so to speak, and pretending like a bill won't come due. If energy is going to cost more in order to bring greenhouse gas emissions down, then that's what we need to do. An added benefit is that the increased price might encourage people to conserve energy, just like many were doing when gas got stupidly expensive last year. The alternative is to suffer the inevitable consequences of climate change. If all you care about is that you can get cheap energy and your taxes, then maybe you'll think differently. Personally, though, I prefer to live in a world where the breadbaskets aren't dustbowls and the weather isn't retarded.
[citation needed]
What problems and incorrect assumptions are you referring to? Also, your words make me think that you don't understand that you don't understand that bills are usually not completely read by Congresmen, but by their aides. Not that it even matters; with all the time spent wrangling and deal making with this legislation, the only way you could not be informed about the contents of a bill is if you're unimportant (hi there freshmen Representatives) or incompetent.
Because they're big enough issues that we can't afford to kick them down the field, but too contentious for Democrats to let them wait, lest their momentum stalls.
Links to the Heritage Foundation are automatic fail.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Or you know, it could increase the price of carbon based energy, which increases the demand for non-carbon energy - in addition to directly investing in non-carbon energy. And they do this by using a market based mechanism that makes producers pay for only a small fraction of their negative externalities.
On top of this you are ignoring that this applies to all manufacturing firms that use carbon as well - its not just power companies.
As for "the costs get passed directly to consumers", that would only happen in a monopolistic market.
The price of energy should be based on demand compared to supply. I agree with this, with some regulation to avoid basic shit like collusion.
Now, where we disagree is on the government's role in Supply. You note that the government could spend money increasing supply on a fuel source they want used (hydrogen), I'm going to argue that by the same logic they could restrict supply on a fuel source they don't want used (fossil fuels)
Wait, wait, are you seriously saying that capping carbon emissions for every company that emits carbon won't reduce carbon emissions? I don't think you understand how cap and trade works, or you don't understand the way a closed system works. Or maybe both.
And the "But China is doing it!" argument doesn't work for human rights, so why should it work for air pollution?
Hydrogen is a pipe dream. There is no easy way to get it that doesn't involve propane. There is already an electric grid. If we can have electric cars that is the way to go.
but they're listening to every word I say
How would an import tax on goods produced in more polluting countries not address this? Or how else could we mitigate this effect?
with the growth of the Chinese middle class there has been a push for environmentalism. We have a chance to set the example and show it can work.
but they're listening to every word I say
Mass industry is already long gone man
We're far better off encouraging newer high tech manufacturing than clinging to scraps of a bygone era.
Forcing business to pass on costs to the consumer is fundamentally no different than a tax. Businesses don't pay taxes, their customers do. Essentially, it's a government agenda funded by public money (as all government agendas are), but it doesn't address the underlying issue. It simply punishes people for not complying.
Yes, there are plenty of viable sources of energy. There is also the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) philosophy forwarded by a lot of the same people pushing for better energy.
Wind Farms require electrical infrastructure which is not being built because no one wants to see a wind farm out their front door. Running solar panels along our Interstates could provide enough electricity to power the entire country on a scale of overkill (meaning we wouldn't need to repave every single mile of highway. I don't remember exact figures, but something along the lines of a year's consumption generated in a day sticks out).
The pollution intensive manufacturing industries were given permits for free. They get to use or sell those once the system goes into place.
The AICHE student chapter at Lehigh hosted an energy symposium that pretty much shat on that point. Representatives of Air Products, the worlds leading hydrogen producer, states that the "problem" of no infrastructure is non-existent. They have been working with Car companies for a while and whenever hydrogen-fuel cells are economically viable the hydrogen stations will spread like wild-fire. They are ready to expand, they just need the "go" button to turn on.
The real problem with fuel cells is that the fuel and the cars themselves are too expensive for most Americans to afford. I believe you can buy a car around 500,000 that runs on hydrogen fuel cells; the cost of fuel I don't know off hand. Another problem is that the most efficient way to mass produce hydrogen is from Natural Gas...so as of right now it is not a renewable energy source, but since its from CH4 the carbon dioxide emissions would be less than gasoline.
The costs will be borne by both the producer and the consumer. The proportion depends entirely on how competitive that firm's given industry is. period.
Basic economics.
and the "underlying issue" is the amount of carbon used. I assume you know nothing about the mechanics of a cap and trade scheme, because that statement is patently false.
Sadly.
Yeah. It would have been better to auction everything off and send most of that back to consumers. but oh well.
Wrong on both counts. Try again.
Yeah, I'm not complaining too loudly since it's better than nothing. Besides we still have to see what the Senate does to fuck with it and then there's the Conference Committee which might ultimately make it a better bill. Still.
It's not necessarily sad. These types of permits/credits are one-use only or usuable within the given year. As such, once the companies' allotted gratis allocation is exhausted, they'd have to buy new ones. So, giving away gratis emissions is probably a way for the government to lessen the immediate impact on businesses as well as getting industry support for the cap-and-trade plan.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12