Senate Set to Vote on Global Warming Bill

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by madanthonywayne, Dec 4, 2007.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    For the first time, the US Senate is set to vote on a major global warming bill that would set carbon caps and perhaps set up a carbon trading scheme.

    I am, of course, against it. Energy is expensive enough already, and the carbon credit scheme was tried in Europe with no effect whatsoever other than more expensive energy.

    Here's the bit about how effective carbon trading schemes are:

    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/new...g/2007/12/historic_vote_on_global_warmin.html
    Few Republicans would support this bill, it may not even make it out of commitee. If it somehow passed, it would certainly not survive a veto. Of course, you never know what Bush will do. We'll see what happens. But with a falling dollar, the morgage crisis, Billy's 6L problem, etc we really can't afford to screw up the economy any further right now.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The European setup had a serious flaw, which was that the governments simply gave away the carbon credtis to corporations, to begin with. That distorted the "market in harm".

    If the government auctions them off, instead, then the general principle of a market - no free lunch - is better defended.

    The alternative, if market principles are to be introduced into the use of the commons that is the atmosphere at the moment, is to tax carbon emission directly.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    I'd say the alternative is to not worry about carbon emissions at all. Oil has already gone from $20 a barrel to almost $100, that's not enough of an increase in price for you? You want to pile increased taxes on top of that? What do you think that would do the the economy?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    as fucked up as the us econmy is right now probably very little
     
  8. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    So your theory is that when the economy is teetering on the brink of recession or even possibly depression; increasing the cost of energy when it has already increased 500%, will do very little?
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    You'd be better off not worrying about "the economy", than allowing a market distortion of the magnitude of the current artificially low price of carbon emission into the atmosphere.

    There is no free lunch. The air is not a free waste disposal site. If you don't pay for that, you are just fooling yourself about your "economy".

    Oil is significantly tax-subsidised, if you count the military overhead, and the carbon stuff would apply much more to coal anyway.
    Energy has not increased 500% - you forget inflation.

    If your "economy" depends on subsidised, below-market inputs at its very foundation, it's going down anyway - the sooner, the more gently.
     
  10. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    CO2 is a trace gas. It's not toxic, in fact, it is a necesary part of the carbon cycle. The economic damage incurred by any serious effort to decrease CO2 emmisions far outweighs any possible benefit.
    Not imposing a tax or some arbitrary rube-goldberg trading scheme means it's selling below market value? Don't think so.

    Increasing the cost of energy increases the cost of everything. It's takes money right out of people's pockets. And for what? Perhaps a one degree difference in average global temperature over the next hundred years? That's what people are fighting for? That's why you want to tank the economy?

    Why not just flush money down the toilet? It makes more sense to spend the money on water purification or vacines. At least then you'd accomplish something, do some good. Rather than wasting limited resourses for no measurable benefit.
     
  11. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    no i'm saying at the current cost of energy the amount that it would further increase through this wouldn't have that big of an impact. and higher energy costs may turn out to be a good thing because maybe american consumers would ration the amount of energy they use on second though maybe not the american consumer is the dumbest thing on the planet. and there are other energy sources be side oil
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Faith based economics has a very poor track record. Normally, a market is the best way to set a price on damage, etc.
    It's being given away by people who don't own it, used as a commons for private profit.

    There is no market. It's not "selling at below market value", it's being given away for free.
    But it decreases the relative cost of the things that use less energy of the more expensive kinds.

    The costs of particular forms of energy production are borne by somebody. If things are set up well, those costs will be born by those who benefit, and in money by those who benefit monetarily.
     

Share This Page