geebeebee said:Dealguy123 said:I don't care to bother with this discussion, as KD's blog sums up my feelings quite well. http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1171-Carbon-Credits-...

To summarize: So what if WE cut down on carbon emissions/etc. What about the rest of the world? You think Asia gives two shits about the environment? Hell no. So, we pay the higher costs now, for what? To make ourselves feel a little better that we're (allegedly) "helping the planet?" In another decade we'll have the "emerging markets/countries" with much higher per capita carbon emissions, and then what..? The reality is that the US is not its own planet. The stupidity NEVER ceases to amaze me..OK, let's take this further. Let's say (obviously not reality YET), that we take the lead, pay the price, and develop technology that drastically reduces our need for oil and coal. You don't see that as a competitive advantage? And as a major side benefit, we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Can't buy into your bluster.

Sorry, but I see a "since no one else cares about the environment, I won't either" strategy as a game of chicken where everyone loses. BTW, WE are the biggest polluters on the planet per capita, so thinking that we reducing our gas output doesn't matter is illogical thinking. You can think what you want about "alleged" helping the planet, but find me someone with any credibility (wingnut radio guys aside) that says it literally doesn't matter how much we pump out, and I'll listen to you. Nobody knows for sure how much we need to reduce gas emissions, but it certainly isn't a negative to do so. And, even if you don't care about the environment, economically, it is smart as well. There is a limited amount of Fossil fuels, and the price for them, IF no good alternatives come about, are going to grow astronomically as supplies dwindle. To twiddle our thumbs until that time, and then go,"WOW! Oil is $300 a barrel. I sure wish we had other alternatives" is much stupider than you claim this thinking is.

I am not an economist but last time I checked, higher energy costs will never be a competitive advantage.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't be moving away from Fossil fuels, just that there are many other ways to move away from Fossil fuels without putting our entire economy in jeopardy.

chimeer said:geebeebee said:Dealguy123 said:I don't care to bother with this discussion, as KD's blog sums up my feelings quite well. http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1171-Carbon-Credits-...

To summarize: So what if WE cut down on carbon emissions/etc. What about the rest of the world? You think Asia gives two shits about the environment? Hell no. So, we pay the higher costs now, for what? To make ourselves feel a little better that we're (allegedly) "helping the planet?" In another decade we'll have the "emerging markets/countries" with much higher per capita carbon emissions, and then what..? The reality is that the US is not its own planet. The stupidity NEVER ceases to amaze me..OK, let's take this further. Let's say (obviously not reality YET), that we take the lead, pay the price, and develop technology that drastically reduces our need for oil and coal. You don't see that as a competitive advantage? And as a major side benefit, we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Can't buy into your bluster.

Sorry, but I see a "since no one else cares about the environment, I won't either" strategy as a game of chicken where everyone loses. BTW, WE are the biggest polluters on the planet per capita, so thinking that we reducing our gas output doesn't matter is illogical thinking. You can think what you want about "alleged" helping the planet, but find me someone with any credibility (wingnut radio guys aside) that says it literally doesn't matter how much we pump out, and I'll listen to you. Nobody knows for sure how much we need to reduce gas emissions, but it certainly isn't a negative to do so. And, even if you don't care about the environment, economically, it is smart as well. There is a limited amount of Fossil fuels, and the price for them, IF no good alternatives come about, are going to grow astronomically as supplies dwindle. To twiddle our thumbs until that time, and then go,"WOW! Oil is $300 a barrel. I sure wish we had other alternatives" is much stupider than you claim this thinking is.

I am not an economist but last time I checked, higher energy costs will never be a competitive advantage.

No one is arguing that we shouldn't be moving away from Fossil fuels, just that there are many other ways to move away from Fossil fuels without putting our entire economy in jeopardy.What are you talking about? It will be a competitive advantage if we don't need it.

Hey, if you want to think small, that's fine. That seems to be the trend these days. Good thing Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, etc. didn't feel that way.

geebeebee said:That's exactly what you're saying. People here love to throw the "straw man" around when they back themselves into a corner.

It doesn't matter if you care -- if your actions show you don't care, which yours do, then that's all that matters. If you REALLY cared, you wouldn't play your game of chicken, and screw the world up. You're trying to justify what you know is wrong, kinda like the "everyone cheats on their taxes, so I should, too" argument.

Your reading comprehension needs a little work. Just because I say I'm not for cap and trade, doesn't mean I don't support being a little more eco-friendly. I'm not sure how to get that through your thick skull. If the emissions are still being created elsewhere, you have done NOTHING. What don't you understand? We're merely shuffling the deck around, and shifting the pollution to other parts of the world. There are many ways to try and actually cut down on our carbon output per capita, and it doesn't involve this legislation.

And you did use a straw man. But, if you didn't understand my first point, you certainly didn't understand the other, so I'll just leave it at that. I'm not trying to "screw the world up" or justify anything. Again, just dumb emotions out of the greenies without "common sense." Certain things can be done outside of this bill, but just go on ignoring them. It's either black or white for some folks, they can't seem gray..

Dealguy123 said:nycll said:Cap and trade will make Fossil fuels more expensive, therefore spur innovations in clean form of energy.

How do you figure smog is rid of in the US cities and Lake Michigan and the Hundson got cleaned up? Free market would have done that? Give me a break.

I agree, a certain level of government "intervention" for certain things is necessary (like regulation in the capital markets), but how much is ALWAYS the big question. I simply think this bill goes too far, especially when our economy is "swirling the bowl." Raising costs on citizens when our economy is already struggling will be a tough pill to swallow for those that are already operating w/o any leeway, as that means concessions elsewhere (perhaps necessities).

Also, while smog was greatly reduced in many areas thanks to stricter emissions standards, it has also had the negative unintended consequence of hurting the areas economically (Kalifornia comes to mind). So, you get the good with the bad. There's no magic fix.How do you figure it goes too far when it gives out 85% of the emission credit for free (according to my somewhat outdated understanding of the waxman bill)? It seems like an about face measure.

geebeebee said:The U.S. is the WORST polluting country in the world! You seem to have a bit of trouble understanding that yourself. Quit trying to pass this off as other countries being the bad guys. At this point in time, WE are the bad guysZing.. wrong again.

A more meaningful number is GDP vs CO2 output, but I can't find that information.

A somewhat batter parameter is output per capita which shows 8 nations ahead of US.

btw. China surpassed US in 2007, you got 2004 number.

beethovengirl said:geebeebee said:The U.S. is the WORST polluting country in the world!
Just like the US has the WORST health-care system in the world? The sources you later cited are outdated and/or inaccurate. China has surpassed the US in total CO2 emissions:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

And the US does not have the highest per capita CO2 emissions either:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xlsAh, well, naturally YOUR source is better than the Center for Global Development.

I'm sure the Gov wouldn't fudge the numbers to make us look better?

You do realize that your sources' spreadsheets are data ending in 2006, right? I think I'll take an independent group over the administration (the same people that said that the earth wasn't even warming, let alone the cause) that put that data out, thank you.

beethovengirl said:geebeebee said:beethovengirl said:geebeebee said:The U.S. is the WORST polluting country in the world!
Just like the US has the WORST health-care system in the world? The sources you later cited are outdated and/or inaccurate. China has surpassed the US in total CO2 emissions:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1co2.xls

And the US does not have the highest per capita CO2 emissions either:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iealf/tableh1cco2.xlsAh, well, naturally YOUR source is better than the Center for Global Development.
This is one of their websites with updated stats, which also confirms that China is the world's biggest polluter right now:
http://carma.org/region

I'm sure the Gov wouldn't fudge the numbers to make us look better?
This is ironic, coming from someone who is so pro-government. I seriously doubt the DOE fudges numbers like this and is indeed a reliable source on such matters.LOL. (that was especially for you)

The Department of Energy in 2006 being up-front and honest? Funny one.

geebeebee said:
The Department of Energy in 2006 being up-front and honest? Funny one.Come on, dude, you already got one thread locked here.

beethovengirl said:geebeebee said:The Department of Energy in 2006 being up-front and honest? Funny one.
Those stats were put out by the Energy Information Administration, which is an independent agency within the DOE that was established in order to provide reliable and unbiased energy information and is not subject to review by executive branch officials:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/abouteia/eia_independence.cfm

Most of the career scientists who work at the EIA and calculate those stats would resign or blow the whistle if pressured to fudge the numbers by political appointees.Uh-huh.

As usual, you're beating a dead horse, trying to eke out a minor victory and losing the war. So, let's say China passed the U.S. sometime, just for fun. All of our stats agree it is close. What is the population difference? We have earned the title as world's worst polluters, and held the title for tens of years.