Comments


  • I can see you have't changed a bit Mike....still pushing for more taxes. =) Cap and trade has been a tax bill since the start. Now liberals are just trying to save their asses before November.

    July 27, 2010 at 8:03 a.m.

  • oops... should be manual override (bypassing the safety system)

    July 25, 2010 at 7:56 a.m.

  • Harry Reid is introducing an energy bill at this time to address this. BP would be responsible for this disaster in the bill.

    The type of blowout preventer BP had purchased was very sensitive and had many safety devices that would have prevented this blow out. The problem was, they were probably running it on manual by override, which should only be used for testing, and this would have allowed a faulty system to operate. Mud men were there which could have indicated that they were working on it, and many reports have it that this well was a problem.

    July 25, 2010 at 7:53 a.m.

  • Cap and trade is wrong. Pure and simple

    July 24, 2010 at 11:57 p.m.

  • If we made the managers of these drilling and oil companies criminally liable for oil blowouts this kind of thing would stop over night.

    July 24, 2010 at 1:05 p.m.

  • It's because of those moratoriums that the oil companies are finally putting time, effort, and money towards dealing with a major oil spills. They didn't have a plan for the worst case scenario and never intended to. We still have a deep shore rig called the Atlantis',that whistle blowers have called a ticking time bomb. During this investigation, we have discovered several violations from other drilling rigs..... I think the administration have modified their moratorium wishes to deep shore rigs after they were ruled against. It doesn't have to be six months but we need to find the violators.

    We really need to to get rid of the tax incentives to the oil companies, it is pretty obvious they don't need it.

    Unless the legislators get back to table; it will be another lost decade.

    BTW.... A long time ago, Al Gore suggested using the carbon tax revenues to eliminate payroll taxes.

    July 24, 2010 at 12:29 p.m.

  • I have supported a carbon tax in the past and I've mentioned Tom Friedman's statement where we could use the revenues for corporate tax cuts, eliminate the payroll tax, and put the rest in renewable energy and voucher's for the poor and the elderly......

    The government will have to be part of the negotiations because of EPA standards.

    July 24, 2010 at 12:13 p.m.

  • What is wrong with a simple carbon tax? That has to be infinitely better than cap n' trade. In fact that's what the EXXON CEO recommended. Then get rid of all the renewable energy subsidies and see what the market and the consumer do. And also get rid of those stupid drilling bans.

    July 24, 2010 at 11:59 a.m.

  • Well again you have taken off an opinion that is different from yours. I answered the question about the difference between cost increase and tax and mentioned some problems that may have sunk cap and trade. I didn't violate any rules, and was factual in my comments.

    July 24, 2010 at 11:58 a.m.

  • This blog was about the demise of Cap -and- Trade; not a place for right wing rhetoric or an infomercial for Laissez-fraise.... The difference between taxes and cost was meant to be a rhetorical question.... You continue to try to drive the subject to what you want to talk about....Everyone is staying on subject there's no reason you can't.

    You are free to put up your own blog and talk about whenever subject you want to....till your heart is content....

    July 24, 2010 at 10:53 a.m.

  • jbj jbj

    This comment was removed by the user.

    July 24, 2010 at 10:28 a.m.

  • Legion357 asked "Did I not mention a couple of years ago that China would take advantage of the green energy opportunity?"

    All I remember you saying that the United States could cut back on emissions but China wouldn't... You may have changed your mind at later date...... I do remember my answer to you.... I told you that story about Tom Friedman telling the Chinese that it was OK for them to use their coal-fired plants because we will come up with the next green innovation and make them pay dearly... I'm paraphrasing.

    July 24, 2010 at 10:12 a.m.

  • That's a good point Jared; that's all we can do as an individual.

    I've often wondered why every building in downtown Houston has to be lit up from top to bottom; why couldn't it be alternating floors or just the top floors that are illuminated? Los Angeles has tried to turn off streetlights in the early morning hours. Alternating subdivisions to prevent wide-scale burglaries.

    I remember when gasoline prices went up a few years ago and the demand for gasoline went down in the large cities because people started using public transportation. We're spoiled; we are not going to take any steps on our own ,until we absolutely have to.

    There's a lot of money keeping us from going to alternative fuels, so it's going to be a constant battle.

    July 24, 2010 at 10 a.m.

  • arlewil

    I'm not a scientist nor am I climatologist; I don't pretend to be either but I do believe in science and visuals.

    I don't think anyone's interested in having a global warming debate because the rest of the world has been convinced and they're taking steps to alleviate the harm.

    I do know this:

    1. We will not decrease in population; we will increase in population, with that increase, the demand for energy use and devices will increase around the world.
    2. I still the remembered the visuals from the Beijing Olympics where people had to wear a mask because of the CO2 pollution.... In Tokyo, downtown is barricaded off, to prevent prevent pollution in the city.... Take a trip to the Medical Center in Houston, go to the top floor and look at that haze over downtown Houston.Go to La Porte,TX where chemical plants are pretty much back to back... Look at that picture.
    3. I don't differentiate the word "taxes" from " cost increase". That's what wewill have in if we don't start to get a handle on it now.
    4 . You can't convince me big oil and big coal money is not keeping us from going to alternative fuels.
    5. The Defense Department and the CIA calls it a matter of National Security for various reasons. Polluted air and water will cause more world wide migration and constant war.
    6. We sold our solar panel technology to Germany and now they are one of the world's leaders.
    7. The country that comes up with the next green innovation will not give as a discount on price just because we are the United States of America.
    8. We been weaning for 40 years and pretty much keeping our heads in sand, except for a few campaign promises, world summit promises, but it's my opinion that , unless we start to take action when democrats have a majority; this issue will go away.
    9. It's gonna be a lot more expensive and a lot harder to get off fossil fuels when we absolutely have to.
    10. As I said yesterday; we have 100 year old electricl grid, we are being forced to drilled deep offshore, have 5% of the reserves and use 25% of the world's oil... The Petro dictators love that.

    The EPA and the Supreme Court agreed with the EPA, when they declared CO2 a pollutant.

    July 24, 2010 at 9:31 a.m.

  • Mike
    I believe the earth is a strong survivor of much that has happened in the past such as volcanic eruptions, astroid colisions, warming periods, ice ages, etc. All things that burn produce CO 2 . Just think of all the bombs that were exploded in the wars of the last 100 years.

    Mars and Earth were created at the same time and both have been cooling every since. Mars is the smaller planet and has become a very cold place.

    Global warming and Cap & Trade by the second largest consuming country in the world (China is number one) will not have any significant effect on the global climate.

    I agree with you on a gradual shift from fossil fuels and think market forces will make that change without government interference and taxes.

    July 24, 2010 at 8:44 a.m.

  • Natural resources are limited resources. It doesn't matter if it has 50 years of natural life or 1,000,000 years left. The point is that it is limited. I doubt I can change big government or big business, but I can change my own house, habits, and speak in my local community.

    July 24, 2010 at 7:43 a.m.

  • SO2 Cap and Trade has had problems. Problems like utilities not being able to make investment decisions because of contradicting EPA rules and volatility in the trading of SO2 credits.

    http://spectator.org/blog/2010/07/13/...

    And as pointed out Europe has had problems with it - a source of political corruption. So maybe it's a good thing that's it's dead - except for Kerry introducing the Son of Cap and Trade. This will get their foot in the door, it will be the start of a festering tumor that will grow with time into a bureaucratic nightmare, like Obamacare.

    July 23, 2010 at 10:26 p.m.

  • Yeah Mike China is well positioned in the green energy field.

    Some environmentalists are cautiously optimistic about what China's new status could mean for the planet, pointing out that it has spearheaded research and development into renewable energy. The IEA's chief economist, Fatih Birol, said China is the world's leader in wind and solar power.

    http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/...

    Did I not mention a couple of years ago that China would take advantage of the green energy opportunity?

    They don't have to go through a congress to pass a bill and have the (usually) American educated scientists and manufacturing base to produce goods.

    July 23, 2010 at 6:04 p.m.

  • That's good information but as I said I'm not a proponent of Cap- and- Trade as the only viable option. It's like any good business meeting; throw it out there, discuss it in, run it through CBO,EPA, and the business leaders and come up with a good plan. Right now, we're running away from it.

    We're not stuck with a European Cap- and -Trade because as I mentioned President George HW Bush used one to combat acid rain. We can at some legislation to the recently passed Finance Reform bill to curb speculation. Naw, just kidding... That bill is long enough.

    Europe is on board with clean energy and China is determined to bury us with the next green energy innovation.

    July 23, 2010 at 5:45 p.m.

  • Cap and Trade, although designed with good intentions has already been hijacked by speculative trader in Europe (http://www.ecx.eu/) and it's not passing has also derailed the hopes of US speculative traders http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

    For the most part, in Europe where it has been implemented, the biggest effect has been to create another commodity for speculators to trade. IMO

    July 23, 2010 at 5:33 p.m.

  • jbj
    This idea has been out there for over 40 years so I won't buy that "rush" argument when I know it's about big oil and dirty coal. That's the real problem, everyone sees alternative fuels as a viable solution but when it comes to committing to it; it's about " that evil tax", lost jobs, or any other scare tactic. I will bet my last dollar that if the GOP gains enough seats; they won't tackle the problem at all... Oil is cheap and the lobbyist money is good.

    The pundits declared healthcare dead but president Obama never did; that's a big difference.

    I don't believe anyone takes campaign rhetoric that seriously besides cost studies have been put out by both sides. Initially ,until the kinks get worked out, utility bills will go up but those costs are gonna go up anyway when we have to depend on other countries innovations.

    I know we're not there yet and we never will be unless we allow Congress to have a debate. We cannot eliminate the government because of environmental legislation.

    July 23, 2010 at 4:28 p.m.

  • Maybe it is being opposed because the senators think they can do better. Things have been so rushed, and probably need more thought. Maybe they will take some time and read it.

    Remember, health care was declared dead more than once.

    Obama said during campaigning, "your energy bills will necessarily sky rocket..." That is where people got the idea that cap and trade would raise energy costs. I remember him saying it because I thought it was a strange use of the word "necessarily", usually seen in context with the word NOT, as in not necessarily. But that is not what he meant.

    There is nothing wrong with clean energy, we need to work on developing it more. I have solar energy for lights in some of my buildings but we are not there yet. We are getting closer.

    In the Victoria advocate are some air conditioners for sale that run using a fan and a block of ice. What a great idea, but we need freezers to refreeze the ice blocks. But in a pinch, where there is no airconditioning that would work for short term. Goes to show that some people are thinking. Still we are not there.

    Even the most crude ideas can be refined into some answers with time and creativity.

    July 23, 2010 at 4:03 p.m.

  • muleman
    Possibly, but getting off the fossil fuels should be a goal right now instead of waiting until we have to.

    July 23, 2010 at 2:57 p.m.

  • Just another tax, so government can spend more!

    July 23, 2010 at 2:50 p.m.