"Cap & Trade" What is it?

amicus

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 28, 2003
Posts
14,812
In the news of late, already in place in some Euro nations, it will affect you, it is a tax.

Each and every energy producer that burns carbon; coal, oil, gas, will be forced to 'buy' from the Government a 'credit' for a certain amount of carbon emissions.

The money spent by these energy producers will be paid by the consumer, which means your fuel costs will increase across the board.

That is the 'Cap' portion. The 'Trade' portion will enrich Chicago based 'traders' who will profit from arranging 'trades' between energy companies that produce less carbon than expected and those that produce more and need extra, 'credits'.

The government benefits from the money paid by industry, and the 'traders' benefit from fees charged for transactions; everyone else loses. And there is no scientific basis that man made CO2 affects the atmosphere or the weather.

The 'why' of the entire cape and trade scam, and it is a scam, goes back to the 60's, the environmental activists who wished to preserve the wilderness, for wilderness' sake, limit growth and the population. It was first the alarm against polluting the planet, then Global Cooling, caused by man, then the Ozone Crisis, caused by man and finally the global warming farce, also caused by man (so they claim but cannot prove).

It is the anti-industrial left in full blown opposition against modern society, business, industry and Capitalism in general.

And now they have a 'believer' in the Bully Pulpit of the White House and an effort by G20 nations to globalize the assault on the free market and Representative Government.

Those taxes on oil, coal and gas fired plants that create electricity, plus the new 'Energy' program from Washington that will not approve new generating plants of any kind, including nuclear and hydro, will create a second wave of the energy crisis as electricity will become more expensive and rationed to consumers because the supply will not meet the demand.

The 'dream' of the activist environmental left, is that a combination of all the 'green' alternative energy sources is that they will fill the gap left by the forced decline of petroleum based energy.

It will not and can not, even by the wildest speculations, produce the amount of energy required by modern societies.

The 'greenies' say good! We use too much energy anyway. You should walk, or ride bicycles. Recycle, re-use, not eat out, even at McDonalds, devolve the modern industrial society to pre industrial revolution levels.

You won't feel the effects today, unless you are invested in the market and energy stocks, but you will, next year and for decades.

Fully half of all electricity generated in the US is by coal fired plants, but coal is, 'off the table' as a solution to creating more electricity, says the Messiah from on High.

Good luck America, the world....you're gonna need it.

As an afterthought, some of you folks have been without electricity during storms this winter. How did you like it?

Amicus...
 
The "greenies" don't believe in Cap and Trade either.

They think that it is a way of allowing polluting industries and countries to continue pumping out things that harm us by trading green credentials with industries and countries that don't.

The main beneficiaries of Cap and Trade will be the alternative energy suppliers and companies that produce the hardware. The US has most of the largest "green" industries in the world but China is catching up.

Cap and Trade is a fudge that reduces the need to change how we use energy.

Og
 
Read carefully what the ostentatious Oggbashan is really saying.

"The 'Greenies' want an immediate halt to all energy production that produces CO2, carbon dioxide.

I laughed all the way through a program last night of how some Swedish or Norwegian city, I forget which, that gets about three days of sunshine per year, they are near the arctic circle, yet they have spent billions on solar panels?

There were very few automobiles in the film of the streets of that city, only bicycles and bundled up people walking.

But gee, they sure did appear to be envirnomentally correct and I may have even seen a smile?

Oh, and just on the news, Obama campaign speech, January 17, 2008, "Yes, my Cap and Trade plan will cause the price of Electricity to skyrocket."

So...no taxes on the poor, eh? Yeah, right.

Amicus...
 
I laughed all the way through a program last night of how some Swedish or Norwegian city, I forget which, that gets about three days of sunshine per year, they are near the arctic circle, yet they have spent billions on solar panels?
Um you are aware of that being near the artic circle means that you get exceptionally bright summers? And above it, perpetual daylight for several weeks around June? Right?

However, if this was something like Bergen, Norway, where it rains all the freakin' time... then yeah.

But the proximity to the poles had absolutely squat to do with it.
 
Liar, I am not a genius and I do not know everything, although I do like to leave that opinion.

I live near the 39th Parallel, during the winter, not only is it cloudy (no sun), the days are very short, anyone in the Northern tier of States and surely Canada can attest to that.

There was recently a piece about Seattle, Washington and solar power which painted the idea as ludicrous because that area has very few sun filled days, ever.

Yes, the 'land of the midnight sun', as London or someone tagged Alaska, does have a brilliant but abbreviated summer but they also have a long winter which at the deepest part, has very little if any sunshine.

Anyone with a lick of sense knows that solar power is not an economic possibility in Northern Latitudes. I mean, you can always build them, spend the money, put people to work and solar panel manufacturers a paycheck, but like digging holes and filling them in again, it accomplishes nothing and does not create sufficient electricity to cover the costs even over a hundred year period.

So, c'mon, Liar, let's keep things at least logical and rational here, eh?

Ami
 
It isn't mentioned very often (guess why), but several EU member countries rely heavily on nuclear energy to keep their lights burning. France comes to mind, offhand. We could lower emissions from our coal fired power plants by going nuke, but nooooo...we'd have another Chernobyl or Three Mile Island and lukemia juice would be rolling through our sewers...BOO! I bet I scared you!

I'm investing in carriages, buggy whips, currycombs and horse feed.:D
 
So, c'mon, Liar, let's keep things at least logical and rational here, eh?
I am, you were the one mentioning the proximity to the polar circle as a cause of less sunshine per year.

I said not a word about solar panels. If I did, it would be this: Direct solar power sucks.

You can only get a limited amount of W per surface (because the sunlight doesn't contain more), and the efficiency of today's solar panels are in single digit percentages of that.

The only places where they are economically viable are in remote locations where you need some power to run a gadget or two, but where you're off the regular power grid. Remote weather stations and speed cameras on country roads come to mind. Vacation trailers and sailboats is another place where they're popular.
 
:confused:

Thas the 'confused' smilie up there:

I am, you were the one mentioning the proximity to the polar circle as a cause of less sunshine per year.

Liar, it is my understanding that the Equator gets the most sunshine and the polar regions the least. Are you debating that?

Amicus...
 
The "cap and trade" principle is the same used in the U.S. to effectively eliminate acid rain and do it with such spectacular cost/benefit ratios as to qualify it as the single most effective piece of environmental legislation ever passed. Compliance costs @$870 million. Annual benefits@$12-70 billion. --Thaler & Sunstein, Nudge. Yale Press, 2008. pp 187-88
 
:confused:

Thas the 'confused' smilie up there:



Liar, it is my understanding that the Equator gets the most sunshine and the polar regions the least. Are you debating that?

Amicus...
Depends on what you mean by sunshine. A sun in the sky? Then yes. It doesn't matter where on the planet you are, you get the same amount of daylight hours over the course of a year.

The polar regions gets their sunshine from a lower angle. So they recieve less energy per square feet. Which is why we freeze our balls off occasionally. So if you talk about sunlight as in the intensity of the solar radiation then you're right, the equator gets the most.

But to solar power, that is a moot point. A regular silicon based industrial solar cell has pretty much the same output in full zenith sunlight as it has in 70% dusk. So it will work almost as well at latitudes closer to the poles as it does in tropical regions. Or rather, it will work as poor.
 
VM...nice reference, no link, but I won't challenge it.

I don't like acid rain either, doubt if anyone does.

It took years to determine the cause; rather like dumping raw sewage into rivers, man always has to learn the hard way, cuz Cholera ain't no fun.

I want to try to illustrate a principle here, not one you will appreciate, but, nonetheless...


It was and is government that licenses the coal fired plants that created acid rain and toxic air pollution. Government, starting at the local level that passes laws to permit activities that injure adjacent property owners.

Every aspect of damage to the environment has been fully approved and licensed by government, at one level or another and upheld by the courts.

Do we have any agreement there?

The laws of property ownership, both the benefits and the responsibilities, is a work in progress.

Instead of creating an EPA or similar government entity, a land Czar that oversees everything...why not just adhere to the constitutional concept of individual property ownership?

If I own land and you infringe upon my rights in any way, I have judicial protection for relief.

A very simple system of property rights where the individual reigns supreme and not even government can infringe upon those rights.

Rather than the State owning and controlling the means of production, why not include the individual in your calculations?

Amicus...
 
TE999.... went to confirm memory that told me France is at about 80 percent nuclear...did that, but was surprised to learn the Belgium is closing all its nuclear plants and that several othr Euro nations are doing the same.

http://www.rense.com/general34/phase.htm

Interesting, eh?

Amicus...
 
Cap and Trade?

Isnt that where Congress puts a cap in your ass and you trade your pay check for some universal healthcare help for the wound?
 
I just bought a shower head with a Venturi hole through which air bleeds aerating the water stream. It reduces water consumption by 40%, which reduces energy consumption per shower by 40%. It's cheap, simple, and green. The only 'cap' is a shower cap. www.ecocamel.co.uk
 
NEOCONLITE

You can clean your ass with a finger, too. It may turn your finger green, but thats a plus.
 
Cap & Trade is carbon credits, pure scam!
I'll pee in your sink but we will be even if I filter your toilet tank :rolleyes:

People fall for this bullshit and are allowed out without supervision? :eek:
 
Last edited:
I just bought a shower head with a Venturi hole through which air bleeds aerating the water stream. It reduces water consumption by 40%, which reduces energy consumption per shower by 40%. It's cheap, simple, and green. The only 'cap' is a shower cap. www.ecocamel.co.uk

Looks interesting - do you know whether that would work with low water pressure also? (my water pressure here really sucks).
 
NEOCONLITE

Schizophrenics like to play in shit. Be careful who you shake hands with.

Back in 1972 a friend of mine picked up a hippie girl on the interstate. While he was brushing his teeth and perfuming his armpits, she shit on his bed.

I'd take a poll about what A/H members do with their excrement, but I aint THAT brave.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cap & Trade is like carbon credits
"is like"? I thought they were exactly the same thing. Isn't carbon credits what you trade in a cap & trade system?

Erm, whatever, it's giving me a headache.
 
Let's deal with the Norway joke first.

1KWp = 8m2 of solar collector. Using Poly Crystalline Silicon photovoltaic, with an efficiency of between 15%-18%, a householder in Bergen, Norway would collect 733KWh per annum (http://sunbird.jrc.it/pvgis/apps/pvest.php?lang=en&map=europe&app=gridconnected). The panels have a guaranteed performance life of 20 years and an 8m2 installation currently costs $2,000 installed - prices have dropped dramatically due to oversupply. Add a financing cost of say $200 - your installation is costing $110/yr over the 20 years for 733KWh per annum. Current domestic Norwegian Electricity prices are €14.98/100KWh or $18.90. The 733kWh produced by the panel would cost $146.10 to buy from the electricity company saving the householder $36.10 minimum. Now... in the winter, there is not a lot of sunshine. Conversely, in the summer there is an excess of sunshine with the PV panel generating more electricity than the consumer might need. The surplus is sold to the power company who routes the householders surplus energy to where there is demand. In Bergen, 450KWh is collected between April and August. Approximately 1/3 of which is collected during the extended nights and early dawn. If we assume this is sold to the energy company, the householder would receive a cheque for approximately $35, so you are covering your investment and getting back $1400 over the twenty year life, assuming energy prices don't increase.


Cap & Trade.
Unless your politicians have invented a new form of Cap and Trade, pollution emitters, including power companies, do not 'buy' the Cap - a Allowance setting a permissible pollution level is given for each individual installation. The Allowance is granted free of charge based on an average pollution emission of past years. The producer/emitter cannot exceed the Allowance. If they wish to exceed the Allowance, they must purchase 'credits' from other polluters. The way this is working is that some polluters can cut emissions cheaply (compared with an energy company, for example) so they can reduce their emissions and sell of their surplus Allowance to polluters who require it to expand their business. The essence is that polluters in poor countries have lower costs to reduce their pollution levels, a cost that can sometimes be covered by trading surplus allowance to rich country polluters. In a competitive marketplace, Amicus, no major polluter - an electricity supplier - will be able to pass on an uncompetitive cost and will have to take measures to bring their pollution levels down to retain their market share. Everyone wins.
 
"is like"? I thought they were exactly the same thing. Isn't carbon credits what you trade in a cap & trade system?

Erm, whatever, it's giving me a headache.

I cleared it up for you Liar. It's still pure bullshit no matter how you look at it.
 
Back
Top