Goldman Sachs, Cap & Trade and the emergence of Gangster Economics

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.

EvilCapitalist said: nycll said: EvilCapitalist said: "Richard S. Lindzen, a professor at M.I.T. and a longtime skeptic of the mainstream consensus that global warming poses a danger." followed by a semi-quote from him ignores what he actually has been saying which can be seen even on his Wikipedia entry.Lindzen's view actually fits my description of the skeptics. He doesn't deny the exisitence of the warming nor the role of CO2 plays. So what's is your point?Huh? Read what he actually wrote. Most of his papers are easily accessible. He's skeptical on CO2 emitted by human activity being the cause of a global warming.
He's skeptical that it's the ONLY cause, not A cause. Here's an excerpt written by Prof. Lindzen from a book on global warming:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/222_Exchange.pdf
"For the most part, I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations. Indeed, I know of no serious split and suspect that the claim that there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more than setting up a straw man to scoff at. However, I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion that this agreement constitutes support for alarm...
1. For the past century, [the global mean surface temperature] has probably increased by about 0.6°±0.15°C (centigrade). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its increase contributes to warming...
3. There is good evidence that man is responsible for the recent increase in CO2, although climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2. "

China's ministry of Health has stated industrial pollution has made cancer China's leading cause of death.
sunny day in Beijing (on the right)
Air pollution (indoor + outdoor) is estimated by the World Bank to kill roughly 3/4 million people annually in China.
A third of the Yellow River is too polluted for even industrial use.

beethovengirl said: geebeebee said: We have earned the title as world's worst polluters, and held the title for tens of years.
The US is neither the world's highest aggregate polluter nor the world's highest per-capita polluter.

Use of hyperbole diminishes the credibility of one's argument.We should make a clarification if green house gases are pollutions. I am still used to think of pollution as smog in the air and mercury in water, etc.

geebeebee said: beethovengirl said: geebeebee said: We have earned the title as world's worst polluters, and held the title for tens of years.
The US is neither the world's highest aggregate polluter nor the world's highest per-capita polluter.

Use of hyperbole diminishes the credibility of one's argument.Wrong. For decades American wasn't the highest aggregate polluter? You guys have just made the argument that they were just overtaken in the last year or two! Not understanding the point of my statement diminishes the credibility of one's argument.
All pollutants are not equal.

geebeebee said: geebeebee said: beethovengirl said: geebeebee said: We have earned the title as world's worst polluters, and held the title for tens of years.
The US is neither the world's highest aggregate polluter nor the world's highest per-capita polluter.

Use of hyperbole diminishes the credibility of one's argument.Wrong. For decades American wasn't the highest aggregate polluter? You guys have just made the argument that they were just overtaken in the last year or two! Not understanding the point of my statement diminishes the credibility of one's argument.Look at your own source and explain to me how we weren't the world's largest polluter for tens of years, starting in 1980?
Ugh, I was going to ignore your last post, but since you seem to want to continue to beat the dead horse, let's review what you said:
"The U.S. is the WORST polluting country in the world!"

You did not say, when averaging over the past 30 years, the US has been the world's largest polluter. You said the US is the world's WORST polluter, which uses the simple present tense, meaning the US is currently the world's largest polluter, not in 1980. You then posted outdated and/or inaccurate sources stating that the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita and in the aggregate. Now that your stats have been proven wrong, you're trying to claim that we need to average over the past 30 years to determine the world's worst polluter??? Well then, I guess we don't need to worry about the rapid increase in pollution emissions by China. After all, it was only 30% of the US's total in 1980.

China's pollution is tied to American consumption of goods. I visited China in 2005 and the air quality is atrocious, but the Chinese on average don't over consume like Americans do. China and America are roughly the same size but China has 1.2 billion people and America has 300 million.

Most likely not scalable...

geebeebee said: This is what I'm hoping to see: Fast Track for Solar

Granted, a long ways to go, but here is the potential:

DOI said: Currently BLM has received about 470 renewable energy project applications. Those include 158 active solar applications, covering 1.8 million acres, with a projected capacity to generate 97,000 megawatts of electricity. That’s enough to power 29 million homes, the equivalent of 29 percent of the nation’s household electrical consumption. The BLM will continue to process existing renewable energy applications, both within and outside of the solar energy study areas.

And that's just solar -- not including all the wind, off-the-grid solar, etc. AND, it's just as many, if not more, jobs than old-school drilling would create, and ones with much more potential heading forward. If we can get out of the paradigm that everything begins and ends with Fossil fuels, that old-school business is gripped by, then something good might happen, beginning with the toppling of the Middle-East oil barons.

Someone needs to explain why we need to use 1.8 million acres to produce the same amount of energy that could be produced by simply doubling the number of nuclear power plants in this country.

depalma13 said: Someone needs to explain why we need to use 1.8 million acres to produce the same amount of energy that could be produced by simply doubling the number of nuclear power plants in this country.

Simple: Nuclear Power is not Politicaly Correct in the US even though the data seems to favor it.

Even in CA, solar has issues

beethovengirl said: EvilCapitalist said: nycll said: EvilCapitalist said: "Richard S. Lindzen, a professor at M.I.T. and a longtime skeptic of the mainstream consensus that global warming poses a danger." followed by a semi-quote from him ignores what he actually has been saying which can be seen even on his Wikipedia entry.Lindzen's view actually fits my description of the skeptics. He doesn't deny the exisitence of the warming nor the role of CO2 plays. So what's is your point?Huh? Read what he actually wrote. Most of his papers are easily accessible. He's skeptical on CO2 emitted by human activity being the cause of a global warming.
He's skeptical that it's the ONLY cause, not A cause. Here's an excerpt written by Prof. Lindzen from a book on global warming:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/222_Exchange.pdf
"For the most part, I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations. Indeed, I know of no serious split and suspect that the claim that there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more than setting up a straw man to scoff at. However, I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion that this agreement constitutes support for alarm...
1. For the past century, [the global mean surface temperature] has probably increased by about 0.6°±0.15°C (centigrade). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its increase contributes to warming...
3. There is good evidence that man is responsible for the recent increase in CO2, although climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2. "

That's not what some people in the EPA thinks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotshe...

Here's a key quote:
"My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."