Nobel Prize winning economist: "Cap and Trade is Cheap"

[Simon Viavant]

I love how the world bitches that we do to much for other countries, and then turns around and says we are supposed to fix everything ourselves.

Lets have all you socially concious small countries start petitioning China, India, and Russia for some action. When they get on your bandwagon, THEN come to us and we will happily ride the train. Why do they have to go first? Cuz everyone fucking KNOWS they will tell you to f*ck off whether we do it or not.

If it's soo much in their best interest, then they should do it since they have about half the world's population. They have more to gain if it's true!

Or, this could be a ruse to destroy the free world's economy for little or no effective gain. (but it will pad some politician pockets baby!)

Or, we need to do something because we're less than 5% of the world's population and use 25% of the world's energy. We emit far more per capita than any other country on earth. We consume three times as much fuel per capita as any other country. We produce 75% of the world's toxic waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
http://www.necessaryprose.com/gluttons.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/Americans-Consume-24percent.htm

[edwinissweet]

I love how the world bitches that we do to much for other countries, and then turns around and says we are supposed to fix everything ourselves.

Lets have all you socially concious small countries start petitioning China, India, and Russia for some action. When they get on your bandwagon, THEN come to us and we will happily ride the train. Why do they have to go first? Cuz everyone fucking KNOWS they will tell you to f*ck off whether we do it or not.

If it's soo much in their best interest, then they should do it since they have about half the world's population. They have more to gain if it's true!

Or, this could be a ruse to destroy the free world's economy for little or no effective gain. (but it will pad some politician pockets baby!)

Or, we need to do something because we're less than 5% of the world's population and use 25% of the world's energy. We emit far more per capita than any other country on earth. We consume three times as much fuel per capita as any other country. We produce 75% of the world's toxic waste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption
http://www.necessaryprose.com/gluttons.htm
http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/Americans-Consume-24percent.htm

i agree, the legislation might not have a drastic change, but someone has to take the first step.

[PLAYER57832]

i agree, the legislation might not have a drastic change, but someone has to take the first step.

Not just the first step. This is only one piece of many actions we need to/should and probably will take.

But again, the real bottom line argument is not so much about whether Cap and Trade is going to help. The real argument is over whether Global climate change even exists and whether human beings can alter it if it is.

[spurgistan]

I love how the world bitches that we do to much for other countries, and then turns around and says we are supposed to fix everything ourselves.

I think you deserve a prize for conflating "fix everything ourselves" and "stop relentlessly pursuing our own interest, screw everybody else." Bangladesh ain't asking much out of us, just asking that we don't flood their entire country by continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Figure we could oblige them?

[BigBallinStalin]

Dear future generations,

Fuck you. Pay me.

Sincerely,
Over-consumption of natural resources



ps. He who dies with the most, wins.

LOL, I'm trying not to cause a scene at the library when I read this.

[BigBallinStalin]

How exactly is cap and trade "helping people"? I mean, it's not like the tax will go to fund the soup kitchens or anything.

I think my point is a valid one.

Any climate change legislation that does not force the entire planet to conform to the same agenda will only hinder progress in the location it is enacted. If you disagree, let's talk about that, instead of how I'm an idiot.

This is impossible; there's no way the entire planet can be ordered what to do. Look at the talks between other nations in that conference that was recently held (or still being held) in Spain; hardly anything's been settled before the Copenhagen talks begin.

USA and it's American people are a main contributor of CO2 emmissions (#2 I think) and a very large consumer of many resources, so they need to adjust what they can by themselves. I don't think cap and trade is the best way to change things for the better, but not doing so seems more disastrous in the long-run. The best solution I've seen is the stepped up production of nuclear energy. But production and legislation isn't the main issue. The main issue/problem is the consumers' repeated refusal to be hold themselves responsible for the consequences of their own actions.

What really needs to happen is a fundamental change in the way most Americans think, and that'll most likely only come 50 years later when we start to see things getting much worse.

Even more of our manufacturing jobs will go to the People's Republic of China. Nothing else of any magnitude will happen because of it.

The Earth will not be saved, or destroyed, by humans. Someday this planet will fight us off like a bad case of the flu.

Paraphrasing George Carlin? If so, I like it, but we're not talking about saving Earth. We're talking about saving ourselves.

If we're the first to make a large move on this agenda, then the world will be more pressured into following suit. Why? Because we won't be hypocrits when we pressure others to do the same. People will take the US seriously since it's actually acting honestly. The other large countries that don't follow suit appropriately will be scolded internationally (and China really can't have that happening; it's been trying to improve its international face for decades).

[Nobunaga]

... Until China gets on board it is pointless (India would be good, too), and they don't give a shite what we do. They'd be happy as hell to see us kneecap ourselves with this this thing.

...

[BigBallinStalin]

... Until China gets on board it is pointless (India would be good, too), and they don't give a shite what we do. They'd be happy as hell to see us kneecap ourselves with this this thing.

...

It isn't pointless. There's many benefits, domestic and international, for USA to go through with this.

If Japan, the US, and Europe make significant changes, along with India and others, and if China still doesn't do anything, they will "give a shit" because that'll really make them look bad. They already get enough bad press as it is, and they've been looking for friends and allies as part of their future plan in securing a stronger grip of their region. They're not going to f*ck this up by doing nothing if the big dogs are doing their share.

[Nobunaga]

... Until China gets on board it is pointless (India would be good, too), and they don't give a shite what we do. They'd be happy as hell to see us kneecap ourselves with this this thing.

...

It isn't pointless. There's many benefits, domestic and international, for USA to go through with this.

If Japan, the US, and Europe make significant changes, along with India and others, and if China still doesn't do anything, they will "give a shit" because that'll really make them look bad. They already get enough bad press as it is, and they've been looking for friends and allies as part of their future plan in securing a stronger grip of their region. They're not going to f*ck this up by doing nothing if the big dogs are doing their share.

... Securing a stronger grip? Their grip is already rather secure and trust me when I tell you, they really don't give a shite.

...

[BigBallinStalin]

... Until China gets on board it is pointless (India would be good, too), and they don't give a shite what we do. They'd be happy as hell to see us kneecap ourselves with this this thing.

...

It isn't pointless. There's many benefits, domestic and international, for USA to go through with this.

If Japan, the US, and Europe make significant changes, along with India and others, and if China still doesn't do anything, they will "give a shit" because that'll really make them look bad. They already get enough bad press as it is, and they've been looking for friends and allies as part of their future plan in securing a stronger grip of their region. They're not going to f*ck this up by doing nothing if the big dogs are doing their share.

... Securing a stronger grip? Their grip is already rather secure and trust me when I tell you, they really don't give a shite.

...

Nab, they're powerful, yes, but they need more allies and a better international image.

You're switching subjects anyway, so if you can't defend what you've previously said, then I'll take it as that.

[Nobunaga]

... (checking to see what I said previously....) ...

... Yes, China doesn't give a rat's ass. Go spend a few years there, come back and tell me what you think.

... This is China's century (ask any Chinese). They will do whatever it takes, bury whoever they have to, and destroy whatever they have to (rivers, forests, lakes, etc...) to attain / maintain an edge.

... I could see China signing on to a cap n' tax scheme only if the brokerages used for carbon trading (the profit centers) were China-based. They are, at present, not.

...

[thegreekdog]

I'm going to assume that cap and trade will be effective at forcing climate change change (yeah, I said climate change change). So, let's all start with that assumption.

If the cap and trade measures are necessary to effect climate change change, why do we care if it's inexpensive or not? Rather, why do supportors of cap and trade care if it's inexpensive or not? If we need it climate change change, we should be willing to pay whatever it takes, right?

In my mind, the issue is not the cost of cap and trade so much as who bears the cost of cap and trade (similar to universal health insurance).

[PLAYER57832]

In my mind, the issue is not the cost of cap and trade so much as who bears the cost of cap and trade (similar to universal health insurance).

But there is a fair amount of "this just is not happening, so ANY cost is just wrong" also.

I leave it to the economists to debate what the most effective/best method will be economically, which is why that article interested me. However, most of the debate here is less about economics and more about "do we even need this". And some "its all an Al Gore plot!"

Your tie to universal health care is interesting and somewhat true. However, I think there, too, the issue is framed as a debate about cost, but really is a debate about "is this really necessary?"

[thegreekdog]

In my mind, the issue is not the cost of cap and trade so much as who bears the cost of cap and trade (similar to universal health insurance).

But there is a fair amount of "this just is not happening, so ANY cost is just wrong" also.

I leave it to the economists to debate what the most effective/best method will be economically, which is why that article interested me. However, most of the debate here is less about economics and more about "do we even need this". And some "its all an Al Gore plot!"

Your tie to universal health care is interesting and somewhat true. However, I think there, too, the issue is framed as a debate about cost, but really is a debate about "is this really necessary?"

I think the issue for the "people who follow the pundits" is "is this really necessary?" I think for people who actually understand (generally) how things work from a tax/cost standpoint, the issue is who bears the cost. I've recently changed my views, somewhat, on these two issues (mainly because I think both of these will pass).

[pimpdave]

I haven't read the whole thread, but no one should forget that George H.W. Bush began the cap-and-trade program that effectively ended the instances of acid rain that were so prevalent in the 80s.

It worked in that case, and ended up making new lines of business possible.

It can't hurt to try it.