Comments


  • Green?  we don't even know what will work, what won't & what will wind up being the next red herring years/decades down the road.  Keeping gas up at $4.00 a gallon is going to continue to hurt those that you champion the most.  Public transportation? Ha!  Thats a joke...we live in Texas remember?!?  I travel across Texas for a living & I saw 1st hand what the $4. gas did to my company & fellow co-workers, it's one of the reasons I'm the only one covering South Texas right now, the others were "down sized".....great for a family struggling to get by.  If you get your wish, I may personally test your $charitable$ nature & see if you put up or shut up.

    March 18, 2009 at 11:15 p.m.

  • VBB
    I used the 12 cent a gallon increase figure for calculating actually cost for a family..Those opposing the cap-and-trade are giving a $4000 cost for a family of four. I disagreed with that and I gave an example…… I never said measly.
    Now, for the bigger picture. I am for gasoline prices staying at $4 a gallon using that money for alternative fuel incentives.
    1) I don’t disagree it would be a financial burden on some.
    2) During the last spike in prices ,the American consumer went for public transportation and cut back on their driving…Consumer use went way down and our dependency on foreign went down.
    3) In order for the next green innovator to justify the expense and energy to make the next battery or alternative fuel, our prices must remain stable and high.

    It is my opinion, that we will have to sacrifice now, for a better tomorrow…We disagee, that’s OK.

    March 18, 2009 at 2:18 p.m.

  • Mike, As I was driving all over the countryside today, I was noticing gas prices are back on the rise.  I then thought about this blog & your saying it's "only 12 cents a gallon".  It may just be 12 cents, but that's 0.12 base added onto an already unstable product.  That 0.12 may make a HUGE difference when it pushes gas upwards to $5 a gallon.  Again it will affect everything we rely on to exist,  all products, as they are mostly all transported by truck.  So that measley 0.12 is going to drive up food prices, clothing, household items, etc that people are not going to be able to afford.  It also takes a toll on people who travel for work.  When employers have to meet govt mileage reimbursements, purse strings are tightened as well, as that money is hard to make up.  This 0.12 could cost more jobs.  I know 0.12 sounds like nothing but in the grand scheme of things, it could be the proverbial straw.......

    March 18, 2009 at 1:03 a.m.

  • Sorry Rollingstone I really didn’t mean to imply the Libertarian tag as a label, more of a mindset such as very limited government, always lower taxes, and every bill is pork.
    I knew about China pollution rate but I was not really aware of the European emission problems, but France is 80% nuclear.
    The mountain of debt: A lot of economist are now saying we were in a recession in 2007 but since we were using credit; it was hard to get a good read….You may not approve of the economics of a stimulus, but it is the best tool available to get us out of this recession, when demand is down, the government is the only entity around with the liquidity and recourses to pull this off, in hope of stabilization and future tax revenues..
    FDR and LBJ did the hard work of installing Social Security and Medicare, this time around the stimulus package extended unemployment insurance, Cobra, and raised amount for food stamps. This takes care of the disvantaged in case of a depression. A safety net for the most vulnerable because the rest of us will reduce our standard of living for a while but we won’t suffer as much as the poor….Like it or not, that was one of the goals…Europe is going through the same financial crisis as we are but they are not as worried or angry because they have universal health care and state sponsored college….Am I advocating single payer insurance or free college? No, just trying to explain the reasoning behind the mindset of the administration.
    You call it massive interference but the companies mentioned in Business Week know it is coming and they want to know what the rules will be (how much CO2 will be allowed) so they can make good decisions. They are not fighting a carbon tax or cap-and-trade because they will pass the cost off to the consumer.
    Health care costs were 2.2 trillion last year; we cannot afford not to do something about it.CO2 emissions will continue climbing unless we try to put a halt to it.
    Truth is we will never pay off the debt, even if we don’t spend another dime for the next ten years, and we will have a big deficit for the next several years. We still have entitlements of which the administration is working on, and a commitment to Afghanistan which will be expensive,
    The administration is thinking of lowering the age of Medicare, means test for Social security and Medicare, reducing subsides for farmers(means testing) and several cost cutting measures you are not giving them credit for…It is if your calculator only has a plus key.
    BTW I like posts from posters like you, Beakus, Toefer, Legion357 etc, so I would never resort to name- calling because an old boss of mine used to say, “If ten of you all agree then nine of you aren’t thinking.”….I love the other view points.

    March 17, 2009 at noon


  • There you go again, Mike, I don't agree with you so I need to be labeled - a libertarian or right winger, or whatever. Can't I just be a concerned citizen, a taxpayer worried about the future of our country?
    Secondly as far as comparing the United States and Europe, here is a comparison: In 2000 the US burned 1,084 million tons of coal and Europe burned 1,046.  In 2007 they both increased consumption to 1,129 and 1,070 respectively.  Europe's percentage increase was slightly less than the US.  In comparison China went from 1,282 million tons of coal in 2000 to 2,893 in 2007 an increase of 126%!!!
    I don't need a political stripe to know that piling up a mountain of debt and printing a huge pile of money is harmful and it is not "promoting the general welfare" of the country.
    And finally if we wreck our economy global warming will be the least of our worries. Anyway the massive government interference in our energy markets does not bode well for that industry. Congress is well on its way to making energy "affordable." That alone should give us pause.

    March 17, 2009 at 8:58 a.m.

  • Alton
    Sorry for the incomplete accounting but I am going by the figures given by Business Week. Unless we have a bill in place that has been debated; all are just estimations.....Not even the most devious Democrat would want an additional $4000 a year to be put on family of four.......IMO...And if true our legislatures would not pass it.

    March 16, 2009 at 7:52 p.m.

  • Legion357
    I plead guilty for the tongue-in-cheek comment about energy companies lowering their prices.
    I never said I was for cap-and-trade but I presented both sides and i am waiting for the alternative solutions,then I will compare both.
    No one is hiding anything,call it a tax,fee,increase but the goal is to reduce emissions .
    BTW you don't really think the energy companies or the chemical industry are going to move on their own...Are you that naive?

    March 16, 2009 at 7:42 p.m.

  • Rollingstone
    I believe Obama was for a carbon tax during the campaign but according to Reuters,the only way for real compliance is with cap-and-trade...I think several states like California and the Northeast are using something similar to cap-and-trade..I wonder if their model would be worth looking at?
    You must be a Libertarian I was describing that does not want to spend a dime or for a box of pencils...:)
    Europe is mostly nuclear energy so how can we compare to them?

    March 16, 2009 at 7:34 p.m.

  • Mike, you forgot to calculate in all the other purchases a family makes in a year.  Food, water, clothing, cleaning agents, electronic products, paper products, medical care, and etc. eat up the budget of many families.  I would rather stand by the complete cost accounting calculations of Point Carbon, that the cost for the first year will be close to $4,000 for a family of four and both parents working, than your incomplete accounting.

    March 16, 2009 at 7:28 p.m.

  • "and 83% below by 2050."

     That should be the first hint that this is a flawed policy, 41 years???????????

     IF cap and trade is such a good policy and not just a hidden tax increase, why in the good old US of A is it being proposed to be in effect for long after all of us are dead and gone?

     And Mike excuse me, but if you think a company would "lower consumers bills as there carbon expense goes down" (when the increase is government mandated in the first place is a little naive on your part).

     Yes they might.......... in 2050.

    March 16, 2009 at 6:35 p.m.


  • I am against this insane spending, I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats doing it I'm against it.    I have read about Cap and Trade in Europe, and the general opinion is that it did nothing towards reducing carbon emissions.   A direct tax on carbon would be more efficient, but whatever we do for God's sake don't start another entitlement program - no mas. 

    March 16, 2009 at 5:58 p.m.

  • Rollinstone
    This cap-and-trade is in its infant stage, with many details, variables to be worked out. This has not been debated yet, and the states that are coal-enriched have not been heard from yet. On the other side, some companies are way ahead of the curve and have the necessary equipment installed to comply with emission control.
    I am still in a wait and see stage but this month’s Business Week did say those involved are ready to comply but the finer details have to be negotiated.
    The earmark, stimulus is on another blog.
    Yes, China is concerned but like some economist said “where are they going.” The Treasury note is still strong (because of our reputation) and the world is in a financial crisis. We are all concerned, and China is pulling for us. They don’t want their investment to fail. Will they stop lending to us? Maybe.
    Sunday, Barney Frank said “the stimulus package package was passed, and an hour and a half later, people are looking for results.”
    You gave the gloom and doom report, but the Fed Chairman told 60 Minutes that we would be out of this recession by the end of the year, and we will see some recovery by the first quarter of next year. We will have to wait and see.
    But if you want to have a debate about pork, earmarks and spending..Bring it..:)
    I know the $646 will start in 2012 and I have not try to sway with exaggerations, calculations or blaming it all on the democrats, nor have I resorted to name calling or labeling, that just means you don’t have any reliable data to support your claim...You are better than that.
    I thought I presented both sides of the issue with quotes from both sides…Maybe not.
    Ok, besides blaming the democrats and Obama what is the solution to greenhouse emissions? Status quo? Let the market decide? But those last two options are the same. The chemical and petroleum are not trustworthy enough to police themselves…I read about three articles and I have not read where any democrats were demonizing republicans on this issue.
    Rollinstone,I have complemented you for your knowledge on issues about climate change...Is this cap and trade not necessary,or this some democratic scheme to steal tax payer money for themselves?

    March 16, 2009 at 3:34 p.m.


  • The $646 billion tax will start in 2012.  The tax amounts to around 80 billion per year collected over eight years of the 10 year budget.  about $15 billion per year of this tax will actually be used for renewable energy.  The rest, about $65 billion per year will be used to launch a new entitlement program call "Making Work Pay."  So instead of reducing taxes on business and corporations they have decided to increased spending on a new mandatory entitlement program.  It's really not about taxes, "it's the spending stupid" to paraphrase that old saying "it's the economy stupid."
    There is also a concern about earmark spending, they say it is only 2% of federal spending. This is in addition to the normal budget which shows spending increasing 5.1% a year. Adding the 2% to this and you arrive at approximately the actual rate of yearly spending increases. This means federal spending will double every 10 to 11 years.
    The GAO defines an earmark as spending designated to benefit a specific entity or person. Congress has gotten around this by making the description of earmarks more general, but they attached so many qualifiers that there can be little doubt as to who will get the pork. The good news is it's no longer considered pork.
    This is how Dick Durbin got one billion dollars for Future Gen to build a clean coal facility in Illinois. These earmarks also have continuing expenses. For instance the Charlie Rankle museum has to have some additional funds for staff and upkeep - who pays these expenses? There are also earmarks that give tax breaks to their friends. This is not spending per se, are these considered earmarks?
    Then there is the cry for another stimulus/pork package. This along with the need for a trillion dollars of additional bailout money is adding up to a mountain of debt. My point with all this is that this cannot go on, the fundamental laws of economics will not allow it. It looks like foreign countries like China are getting nervous about our ability to pay our debts and concern throughout the world about a wave, maybe a tsunami of inflation. What we are doing is insane.

    March 16, 2009 at 2:50 p.m.