Boxer moved to Cap our Jobs and Trade our Furture
Nov 6th, 2009 by David Anderson
Republicans were upset that Senator Boxer was determined to push her bill capping “greenhouse” emissions before the analysis was complete. The bill was much more radical then the house passed bill and is likely to supplanted by another bill. Why vote it out if only the more radical fringe supports it? It sends a symbolic message to the world. Yes, like dumb Americans.
The Boxer bill would have us cut by 20% emissions of naturally occurring gases such as carbon dioxide by 2020. It does not encourage moving us to energy sources that can work quickly. The likely advancement of Ms. Boxer’s prefered alternatives jumping up to an arbitrary 20% in the next decade is small so her bill would mandate cuts in energy consumption leading to either higher prices or rationing. How bad it would be is unkown because she did not want her own party to see the scoring before the vote.
The Democrats stopped respecting the public a while ago. They stopped respecting the rights of Republicans after the stimulus vote. Now they do not even believe in the rights of their own party to have fundamental information about bills. Yet, only one Democrat Senator voted no. It will be changed by Reid anyway, they said. Democrats do not even cares what the bills do anymore. They just vote for anything with a good title and change it behind closed doors.
Without aggressive changes to renewable or alternative energy sources (nuclear for one) the only way to get emissions down 20% is to choke economic growth.
Loss of economic growth = unemployment.
Mike Protack
Agree that Cap and Trade is wrong
- whether one is for or against emission control
The issues are emission reduction and future energy supply.
Given the uncertainty of the effects of emission reduction on global temperature - and given the expense of emission reduction - the key is
to engage in activites which
1. Are valuable in themselves.
2. Meet emission reduction targets with minimal business disruption and expense.
Sufficient first phase 2020/2030 emission reduction, for 2020 typically quoted at 15-20% reduction, is achieved by acting on electricity generation (coal, gas) and transport (mainly automobiles) alone,
since these 2 sectors account for nearly 80% of CO2 emissions.
This can be done with emission tax (for cars, allowing free choice) and emission limits for CO2 (for electricity generation), without any emission trading.
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.
4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the here suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local.
In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case America is on track,
and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures,
and can involve other industries if necessary.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
This is even more obvious from having no energy efficiency regulation either.
Compare with
today’s all-encompassing Cap and Trade (emission trading) suggestions,
with unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, or unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand, together with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what
people can or can’t buy and use.
—————————————-
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need - or not - to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax — Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions.
Point 4 is an interesting strategy. I think it is one worth considering. BTW welcome. You are welcome anytime.
We have some of the same perspectives except that I think focusing at all on CO2 emissions is an error. I believe the focus should be on energy sustainability and rewarding both low and nonemitting forms of energy and greater efficiency. I believe the market will then set into motion a better system which works in its own time. It will build the economy not shackle it and I bet will provide better results in 40 years.
We are not hostile to anyone especially contributors. Maria left because of a new job. I have the highest degree of respect and love for her. We can’t tell you how much we miss her. At least she is just a phone call away if we miss her too much.
Dave likes to be active and in charge. He did not want to step on my toes. I respect that. He is a good man and attempts to play us against one another will not work. Ditto to what I said about Maria. Besides he may have wanted to be sure to avoid a civil war. I am sure that we will have a dynamic contest of ideas but avoid any “intraparty” war. Both sides will have their space to make a case for their candidates. It keeps everyone reading. If you shut one side out, you shut out half of your readers.
I would like to get to know Randy better. He seems to be a great thinker and a kind person. I have a great deal of respect for him.
I know the other contributors feel the same way.
Read or don’t, but please do not try to bring a divide an conquer mentality here.
Thanks Dave #3
Re energy efficiency,
this can certainly have benefits for individuals and businesses, but I believe regulation on it is wrong
The light bulb ban is only the start,
of bans proposed in previous years, and of bans in
Waxman-Markey Bill and to a lesser extent in Kerry-Boxer bill
Buildings, cars, refrigerators, freezers, washing machines,
dishwashers, boilers, heaters, TV-sets, plasma screens, computers and much else are up for efficiency based bans.
A natural reply might be
”well isn’t it good to only have efficient products?”
No: Energy efficiency is only one advantage a product can have.
Inefficent products have advantages too - or noone would buy them.
Whether cars, buildings, TV sets or dishwashers or other products,
greater energy use can mean better performance, appearance, construction, cost and indeed savings for any given product
See examples and descriptions
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
Energy or emission problems can and should be addressed directly,
there is no need to ban what people want to buy
(there is no energy shortage given renewable development, and emissions can as explained on the website be dealt with directly - besides, electrical products don’t give out CO2, power stations do)
The argument for efficeincy regulation (especially on electrical products) that
“It takes too long to deal directly with energy supply and emissions, we must also act on consumption, banning products that don’t meet defined efficiency standards”
doesn’t hold up:
1. Because the lowering of emissions from electricity generation and distribution can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational skills rather than money.
Grid interconnections can relatively rapidly spread low emission electricity from a specific source.
http://ceolas.net/#em1x
2. Because there are numerous disadvantages to consumers of efficiency-defined bans.
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
3. Because energy and emission savings from such bans are not as great as assumed anyway.
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x
4. Because -while it should not be needed, and is still in principle wrong, but better than bans - appropriate and temporary TAXATION on products that would otherwise be banned not only raises funds for relevant environmental projects,
it quickly limits and redirects consumption for the time required,
with more adaptability regarding scope and application than bans (and sales tax on efficient products can be lowered, without revenue loss)
http://ceolas.net/#gg5x
.
Thanks Dave #3
Re energy efficiency,
this can certainly have benefits for individuals and businesses, but I believe regulation on it is wrong
The light bulb ban is only the start,
of bans proposed in previous years, and of bans in
Waxman-Markey Bill and to a lesser extent in Kerry-Boxer bill
Buildings, cars, refrigerators, freezers, washing machines,
dishwashers, boilers, heaters, TV-sets, plasma screens, computers and much else are up for efficiency based bans.
A natural reply might be
”well isn’t it good to only have efficient products?”
No: Energy efficiency is only one advantage a product can have.
Inefficent products have advantages too - or noone would buy them.
Whether cars, buildings, TV sets or dishwashers or other products,
greater energy use can mean better performance, appearance, construction, cost and indeed savings for any given product
See examples and descriptions
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x
Energy or emission problems can and should be addressed directly,
there is no need to ban what people want to buy
(there is no energy shortage given renewable development, and emissions can as explained on the website be dealt with directly - besides, electrical products don’t give out CO2, power stations do)
The argument for efficeincy regulation (especially on electrical products) that
“It takes too long to deal directly with energy supply and emissions, we must also act on consumption, banning products that don’t meet defined efficiency standards”
doesn’t hold up:
1. Because the lowering of emissions from electricity generation and distribution can be addressed in several ways, not all of which need take time, and some of which need organizational skills rather than money.
Grid interconnections can relatively rapidly spread low emission electricity from a specific source.
ceolas.net/#em1x
2. Because there are numerous disadvantages to consumers of efficiency-defined bans.
ceolas.net/#cc211x
3. Because energy and emission savings from such bans are not as great as assumed anyway.
ceolas.net/#cc214x
4. Because -while it should not be needed, and is still in principle wrong, but better than bans - appropriate and temporary TAXATION on products that would otherwise be banned not only raises funds for relevant environmental projects,
it quickly limits and redirects consumption for the time required,
with more adaptability regarding scope and application than bans (and sales tax on efficient products can be lowered, without revenue loss)
ceolas.net/#gg5x
.
Eventually, even dumbass cattle like the California voters will realize what’s being done to them. Boxer will be defeated in ‘10!