Comments on: The Perfect Storm of Cap and Trade.

By: JLenardDetroit

JLenardDetroit — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:35:08 +0000

Our great un-informed unwashed keeps getting sucked into it, but we don't hear the "B" (Bi-Partisanship) word as much lately because we have so many examples to dispell the myth/lie.... We do NOT, IMO, do enough to bring the point that there are always more Democrats crossing AGAINST the ObamAgenda than Republican defectors (which only further makes it so darn irratating they crossover when these things could have only Democrat finger-prints on them): Bi-Partisanship is really DEMOCRATS joining with REPUBLICANS, not the other way around.... see: again, Bi-Partisanship has really been Democrats joining with Republicans (here) and here and (here again) Brian's Dems join Rep on Ethics issues and How 32 D's joined R's on HR2346 How about Dem's join Republicans to stand for FREE Elections in Iran view too the jackACES Act (Clean Energy) 44 Dems Against while only 8 Reps for plus so many other times I don't have articles links to. but we'll never get that truth out of the MSM

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:28:15 +0000

bills more often than not neither solve the problem meant to be addressed and leave the voters confused as who to blame and what solutions would actually work.

The perfect example of clarity was the Reagan supply side following the failed CarterDems. Too bad that memory got clouded.

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:22:02 +0000

As my favored gubernatorial candidate says, let the partisan bickering begin. Unles we start having the war of ideas that is necessary, we cannot achieve reform. When politicians on both sides are going along to get along, we commoners suffer, immeasurably.

By: LibRick

LibRick — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:11:58 +0000

black and blue and even bloody. But the conservative angels have a couple of bruises in the fight too. I wish pragmatism supplanted bi-partisanism as the action word of the day.

By: LibRick

LibRick — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:41:51 +0000

if I’ll ever change my views but I do know to never say never.

You, Aaron and so many others on this site, through comments and diaries, have helped me to see a wider picture. I don’t agree with many opinions here, but I do respect them, understand them, and have actually modified my views based on them. What can I say — I’m a bleeding heart liberal. I suspect all of you are “bleeding hearts” — for our Country.

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:35:23 +0000

Pragmatism does stipulate the most good for the most people, right? Your liberal angels must be black and blue all over.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:35:10 +0000

Neither speaks for me either….but one certainly represents my beliefs more than the other.

Inevitably at some point you will be faced with the decision of D or R, and I will continue to encourage you to go towards the R.

And I think with all the issues faces our country you will be happy to do so when the time comes.

By: LibRick

LibRick — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:25:43 +0000

I don’t think either party speaks for me. I’m that odd bleeding heart liberal that feels the pain yet is drawn to libertarian pragmatism and deep seated christian values. What a mess!

I’ll admit that lately, given the current politics, my conservative angels are beating the crap out of my liberal angels…especially on cap and trade.

By: janis

janis — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:22:46 +0000

in the near future, you can haz new party affiliation? Although you must wonder why we keep urging you to do so when we spend so much time tearing our hair and shrieking in dismay over the antics of our elected officials. (For instance, SHUT UP MARK SANFORD!)

Whatever it takes, Rick, we’ll get you yet, my pretty! And your little dog, too.

By: Aaron Gardner

Aaron Gardner — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:08:51 +0000

By: LibRick

LibRick — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:05:21 +0000

You succinctly make two key points.

1. “Anything that proposes ?carbon fees? or ?carbon offsets? is nothing but a tax scheme.” — I agree and cannot figure out why so many do not see this, whatever side of the issue one stands on.

2. “If you want clean energy, then lobby for nuclear power…” Nuclear would reduce carbon, create jobs, help our infrastructure, and reduce our oil reliance. Yet,, you hear nothing from the GW warriors on these benefits.

I really appreciate your clarity in such a muddled issue.

By: Warrior

Warrior — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:38:40 +0000

I agree w/Janis and kyle8. This is nothing more than a scheme to keep our royal gubmint rolling in dough for the foreseeable future. Since everything from oceans to cows to human beings produce copious amounts of CO2, the gubmint has finally found a way to tax the very air we breathe.

But as for the current boondoggle, weren’t “offsets” supposed to be assigned by lottery, or auctioned off or something? I’ve read that most have already been given (or promised) to cronies and campaign contributors. If that hasn’t yet happened, it is indeed the very direction this mess will go, just as politically connected retirees (union members) were saved from the disatrous consequences of their own meddling in the free market system (among other things,) while other retirees (whose pension funds had underwritten GM & Chrysler’s debt) without political clout were left out in the cold.

If the Dems manage to pass this junk and healthcare too, I believe it will not be reversible by 2010. Obama and Co. will frontload any actual benefits (and have his lapdog media fabricate others) so that neither will seem a bad idea in the near term – just as they did with housing. It’s all a great idea until the bottom falls out – then it can easily be blamed on ________(insert current Rupublican leader’s name here, e.g. GW Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.)________…..

By: peg_c

peg_c — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:10:57 +0000

Heh.

By: peg_c

peg_c — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:10:05 +0000

the way communists care about “the workers.” Neither gives a rat’s behind – it’s all smoke and mirrors. We know what they’re after.

By: JHancock

JHancock — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:48:46 +0000

…since with cap and trade they seem hell-bent on sodomizing the average American.

With cap and trade San Francisco and New York elites will sit back and stroke themselves over their ?enlightened environmental greenness? while the rest of us will just get shafted by higher energy and transportation costs.

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:13:48 +0000

Do you know how I KNOW that AGW is bullcrap? Because if those who push it really believed that it will destroy the world, then they would be pushing for a simple tax on fossil fuels offset by cuts in other taxes so not to crash the economy, and most of all they would be pushing nuclear power.

Since neither is happening I can only cynically assume that this is a tremendous rip off scheme.

YOU need to have a little more cynicism and skepticism. We have seen all this before. A few decades ago we were told that if we did not have an expensive change of all our refrigerant products then the ozone layer would go away. (this conveniently coincided with the expiration of all the old refrigerant patents.) just AS SOON AS the law passed, you never ever heard one more word about the ozone layer, and in fact it was never in danger.

By: bk

bk — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:06:33 +0000

The 8% who say the Dems are too conservative are the ones in the 3rd bullet of the OP saying they’ll destroy any Dem who gets out of line.

Hmmm… And it’s our side that is accused of not employing a “big tent” philosophy??? Uhh…

By: bk

bk — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:01:59 +0000

By: janis

janis — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:53:53 +0000

is real and therefore must be addressed with some sort of action. Anything that proposes “carbon fees” or “carbon offsets” is nothing but a tax scheme.

If you want clean energy, then lobby for nuclear power. If you want much less reliance on foreign oil, then push for offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR. All the Dems are ever going to propose are job-killing, economy-crippling boondoggles that will do nothing but chase ever more companies out of this country.

By: dawsonw2

dawsonw2 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:55:01 +0000

The Waxman-Markey”s cap-and-trade bill features anemic goals, un-provable offsets, and new coal-fired power plants without carbon sequestration. It also removes EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases from the “capped” facilities. It would disable our ability to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for at least a decade ” after which the risk of irreversible climate calamity will be hugely increased.
Waxman-Markey allows a massive level of “offsets,” which blows away the “cap” in cap-and-trade. The two billion metric tons of offsets annually would provide almost 20 years during which cheap, essentially fraudulent offsets would be sufficient to meet all required reductions. These offsets would be counted as environmental progress on paper, while allowing degradation in reality. Those enriched by carbon-offsets, along with others who would profit from the bill”s free permits-to-pollute, would vigorously fight efforts for reform, even after the system”s flaws became obvious.
Waxman-Markey proponents ignore huge differences between the EPA acid rain program and climate challenges. In the Acid Rain program, EPA shepherded a few hundred existing coal-fired power-plant units with extremely accurate emissions measurement through a relatively manageable fuel switch from high-sulfur coal to readily-available, affordable, low-sulfur coal.
Carbon fees with monthly rebates could be the centerpiece of an affordable, equitable and rapid transition to our clean energy future. So that they wont have problems with paying it by payday installment loans.