Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Cap-and-Trade Bill Passes House

潤滑液,SM,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV, 情趣,G點,性感丁字褲,情趣,角色扮演服,吊...

2009-10-27T04:06:46.328-04:00

潤滑液,SM,內衣,性感內衣,自慰器,充氣娃娃,AV,
情趣,G點,性感丁字褲,情趣,角色扮演服,吊帶襪,丁字褲,情趣用品,無線跳蛋,

按摩棒,電動按摩棒,飛機杯,自慰套,自慰套,情趣用品,情趣內衣,
情趣按摩棒,.,
自慰套,角色扮演,按摩棒,跳蛋,情趣跳蛋,

色情小說|七夕情人,一夜情,

Addendum to my prior post. On whether the legisla...

2009-06-29T15:50:22.308-04:00

Addendum to my prior post.

On whether the legislation is "extreme," Paul Krugman says in today's NY Times: "But in addition to rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low."

One may disagree with Krugman's politics, but I find he doesn't fudge the numbers.

Rudy, Some final thoughts. I see nothing that's ...

2009-06-29T15:09:52.597-04:00

Rudy,

Some final thoughts.

I see nothing that's been proposed that amounts to "coercion." People remain free to make choices. That some choices come with a price does not make that price coercive. As we have already discussed, choices that come without a price essentially force coercive results on everyone else. I just don't see where government is "making the decisions for us" here, unless one considers the prospect of slightly higher energy prices a decision. And even with that possible result, people can choose to do nothing, or do something to mitigate that outcome. Unless one is a libertarian, willing majorities bring along unwilling minorities all the time, else little would get done.

You say the evidence for prompt action is lacking, that the problem is "dubious," and the proposed response "extreme." I see none of these things. My reading has been that the need to act is pretty urgent, that the possible consequences of inaction are substantial, and the proposed actions are reasonable and not all that costly. But if we're reading the evidence differently, then there's nothing more to discuss on that matter. (Still, how much risk does one want to take on an irreversible catastrophic outcome, even if the probability of that outcome isn't all that certain?)

You say that government "coercion" interferes with individual "freedom to make the best choices for themselves." Putting the "coercion" label aside, I'm sure you are aware that sometimes allowing unfettered freedom results in everyone doing worse. Overfishing is a classic example. In such situations, government regulation is certainly justified even on a purely economic analysis. Again, this generalization that markets are good and government is bad seems to me to be an ideological choice and not one based on getting to particular results. Again, markets are means, not ends. I think we need to consider the ends first and then the best means of achieving those ends. It will usually be the market. But not always.

DSimon, I understand your logic, but I think you a...

2009-06-29T09:31:58.916-04:00

DSimon, I understand your logic, but I think you are buying into the false logic that coersion equals incentives. They are very different. Incentives do not include punishment for failure to respond. Redistribution of punishments and incentives to generate desired behavior is hopelessly politicized and economically inefficient.

You're confusing microeconomic behavior and macroeconomic table-setting. Agreed that people don't and shouldn't run their lives to maximize economics, but that doesn't mean that government should make those choices for us. Nor should it stack the deck such that there really is no choice. For individuals to be backed into a corner on the choices they can make is freedom-killing.

As far as time frame for debate, it certainly shouldn't be like it was with the House bill, with a bill no one had read and only three hours of debate. The right time frame can only be when the debate is winnable based on evidence. The evidence of the need for such an extreme response to a dubious problem is clearly lacking, which is why this is bad legislation.

Sure, there are scientists that think we're on the late side, and there are those who think it is a complete non-issue. Both may even be right. Until someone can show a fact-based case why this extreme coersion is necessary, government should do nothing. Evidence favors the do-nothing argument, so Bush's approach was right. It would be improper to place a higher priority on non-economics without a compelling reason to do so, and that reason is only theoretical, and more than likely false.

In the meantime people will adjust behavior on their own, based on their own choices, responding to what is best for their circumstances. More government coersion only hampers their freedom to make the best choices for themselves.

Rudy: Thanks for your comments. On to your most r...

2009-06-29T09:00:45.254-04:00

Rudy:

Thanks for your comments. On to your most recent post...

I don't like blurring the lines between economics and social policy.

One of my points is that the "blurring" is inevitable, and perhaps even required. There is no way to separate them out, and trying to do so won't provide an answer that's worth very much.

Do we live our lives to maximize our economic output? We watch TV, we go on vacation, so evidently not. Or is it that these activities have some economic "value" to us which, if we could quantify it, would make our decisions rational and output-maximizing? To me, its semantics. But if these factors are not included, then we're not rational actors. If they are included, then the calculation is fuzzy. So we'll either get a wrong result, or one that has uncertainty. We're not going to get a "correct" answer with just money in, money out.

Here's another example. I think it's arguable that would be more "efficient" to reduce crime if we had video cameras on every corner. But we reject that system. Why? It's because we don't want to live in a police state. So does one conclude that we are irrational, in which case this economic analysis doesn't do much for us? Or do we conclude that there is some fuzzy economic value to liberty that makes our decision rational? Either way, just quantifying what can be quantified and leaving everything else out seem to me to get a number that may be, indeed likely will be, meaningless.

I don't want government setting the price of apples. Better apples at lower prices is, I think a good thing. But that analysis I think doesn't work very well when we're trying to figure out what kind of society we want to live in and how to get there. It's just not the right tool for the job

Similarly, I think it is wrong to explicitly enable the wealthy or politically-connected to Gore-esquely buy themselves out of personal responsibility, and yet demand that the rank-and-file fall in line or be punished economically.

First, the wealthy always have advantages. They can buy themselves better schools, housing, food. But wouldn't having people pay more for profligacy (as you say "buy themselves out of personal responsibility") be better than what we have today where those people are wasteful and don't have to pay for it? And wouldn't those revenues leave the "rank and file" better off by reducing whatever burdens that would otherwise have to be imposed?

And the "rank-and-file" don't have to be "punished" economically. There are plenty of ways to funnel revenues so that most people are not hurt but still have the incentives to make the changes we need to make. For instance, revenues from a gas tax could be used to lower the (regressive) wage tax and/or provide breaks on more efficient cars. That trade-off gives everyone, regardless of income, incentives to drive less and drive better vehicles while cushioning those who may take a while to make the transition to better vehicles.

The numbers are too big. This should and will be a protracted debate, and not a rush-rush job.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "rush-rush" job. A year? Five? Ten? There are many scientists who believe that we're already on the late side, and that doing something badly now would still be better than trying to get it right later.

And I don't think the numbers are that big. Conservation alone could result in huge savings and really wouldn't cost anyone much at all (again, if we just drove better cars...not a big sacrifice, either in lifestyle or money). Weatherizing homes would save energy, pay off in the long run, reduce emissions, and create jobs.

Bush kept saying we'll do something about climate change, but not at the expense of economic growth. But maybe economic growth is not our highest priority. Maybe shaving a small fraction of growth is something most people would be willing to do if it had some chance of preserving the environment. Otherwise, it seems unlikely anything will get done at all. And we'd never go on vacation.

Tomas, the only reason solar has had such a long d...

2009-06-29T08:33:54.248-04:00

Tomas, the only reason solar has had such a long development life cycle is that the economics haven't been right. If the economics were compelling, the world would beat a path to the solar door.

A lot of the current improvement in solar technology is because of technology improvements from the semiconductor industry, reducing the raw materials cost and improving efficiency. Those developments naturally take time.

Grid parity for solar really is a false goal, but it is an important milestone. The common definition of grid parity for solar is only so for installations where transportation or storage of power isn't required. So, that will make it mostly suitable for rooftops and adjunct use during daylight hours, not primary use.

The danger of artificially forcing the economics is to stall innovation elsewhere and to subsidize inferior economic performance. That would be just disastrous for the economy, which is a point that is too often missed.

The thing is Rudy, and I agree to a certain extent...

2009-06-29T07:02:32.543-04:00

The thing is Rudy, and I agree to a certain extent that grid parity is the goal, any other technology that gets invented as an alternative to fossil fuels will have just as long a ramp-up as Solar, Wind or whatever. Clean Coal (which is one of the world's worst misnomers) will take another 10 years just to get a reasonable size demonstration plant, plus another 5 for successful demonstration of the storage. That's 2024 before we've even conclusively proven it works. From there the technology is still at the bottom of the exponential growth curve - essentially where solar or wind were in the 70s.

So any technology invented today will likely need 15 years to perfect, then another 20 or 30 to roll out to large scale deployment and commercial viability. Wind and Solar have done that bit, by and large, excepting a few efficiency gains and cost reductions. They are economically viable or will be with a couple of years of market generation - which is what a feed-in tariff does - it stimulates demand for a product so that the growth curve moves faster with more installations, shortening the time to grid parity.

And as for the whole oil/car thing, you can apply a similar logic to battery powered cars, which are at more or less the stage solar is at.

We can't do nothing but wait for the perfect technology, as it'll still take decades to perfect and expand that technology. We have technologies that are ready for deployment in the near future. Like them or hate them, they will be the technologies we rely on.

Scotty, Scotty, Scotty Your post is not evidence ...

2009-06-29T04:50:46.546-04:00

Scotty, Scotty, Scotty

Your post is not evidence for corporate belief in global warming at all. They simply want to drill through the ice to get at the oil.

Do you really believe that? If so, you have absolutely NO idea how much power moving ice can exert and how much it weighs.

Ice weighs almost 60 pounds per cubic foot. A typical North Atlantic iceberg weighs 100,000 to 200,000 tons, but they can and do get bigger, a LOT bigger.

Also, an iceberg can be trapped in pack ice, and pack ice can crush a ship (and has done so).

There is NO oil rig that would be able to stand up to moving ice. Remember, rock is stable, but ice moves. Remember, it is floating on water.

Try reading this article from 1994 about how Canada had to protect oil drilling rigs off Newfoundland from icebergs:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/26/business/canada-s-high-risk-oil-venture.html

And then do a search for 'Hibernia project', the project described in the above article.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

If, as most conservatives suggest, we should adher...

2009-06-29T04:16:18.895-04:00

If, as most conservatives suggest, we should adhere to what the free market tells us, then conservatives should line up lockstep with the "environmental wackos" because the free market has spoken loud and clear about where it stands on climate change issues.

You're confusing the free market with corporations. Conservatives like myself are for the former and indifferent to the latter. Despite what some would have you believe, true conservatives (NOT necessarily Republicans) are just as much against the government enabling corporate waste as they are against it enabling personal waste. This is why we were so against the $700 billion TARP bill.

Now for the topic at hand: Your post is not evidence for corporate belief in global warming at all. They simply want to drill through the ice to get at the oil. Even offshore wells have to drill through miles of rock to open a working well; it's not a stretch at all to imagine a well that started by drilling through ice.

Leaving CO2 and SO2 emissions aside for a moment.....

2009-06-29T02:17:58.959-04:00

Leaving CO2 and SO2 emissions aside for a moment...

If, as most conservatives suggest, we should adhere to what the free market tells us, then conservatives should line up lockstep with the "environmental wackos" because the free market has spoken loud and clear about where it stands on climate change issues.

Although many aggresively fund and support intitiatives to expose global warming as a liberal hoax, major oil, gas, and energy companies are not only believers in global warming, they're banking on it. Nearly every major company in the above categories has begun to amass leases in regions that will open up as new ice melts away. Greenland's Bureau of Minerals and Petroleum reports that applications to buy up rights to lease coastline strips for oil exploration have increased fifteen-fold. ConocoPhillips, Shell, ExxonMobil, Devon Energy, and Chevron have collectively invested more than $400 million in exploration licenses for the Alaskan Beaufort Sea area alone.

Other contries, not just American petrol giants practice this as well. Russian energy/gas behemouth Gazprom believe they've found one of the largest offshore gas reservoirs on earth in the Barents Sea and have all the giants falling over themselves to develop the area.

In short, there's a lot of money to be made by global warming profiteering. Is climate change a real phenomena? As Deepthroat said, "follow the money."

DSimon, I always appreciate your well-thought-out ...

2009-06-29T01:04:34.141-04:00

DSimon, I always appreciate your well-thought-out arguments, even when we disagree, which is often. Beats having to tolerate ham-handed insults in lieu of logic.

Obviously, the crux of our disagreement here is the nature of the policy differences, I don't like blurring the lines between economics and social policy. Each must stand alone on their individual merits.

I think it's erroneous and coercive to manipulate social policy under the guise of economics. I would prefer to see individuals be socially responsible regardless of economic force or coersion, and by their own standards, not those of the legislative class. Similarly, I think it is wrong to explicitly enable the wealthy or politically-connected to Gore-esquely buy themselves out of personal responsibility, and yet demand that the rank-and-file fall in line or be punished economically.

The economics are presently getting short-sheeted in the cap-and trade discussion. For the reasons I outlined earlier, there are distinct downsides to anything that makes energy more expensive, especially for what many believe is vacuous social policy.

We can't afford to get this wrong, in either direction. The numbers are too big. This should and will be a protracted debate, and not a rush-rush job. I believe that the more people understand, the less they'll be inclined to place such a huge burden on the economy.

Rudey said... DSimon, you're right about true cost...

2009-06-29T00:49:17.009-04:00

Rudey said...
DSimon, you're right about true costs, at least to the degree that the costs really are true costs, and not just an arbitrary tarriff designed to punish certain players for non-economic purposes.

Policy decisions for non-economic purposes can include:

Tax-exempt status to the income of churches;

Tax deduction for home mortgage interest payments;

Decision to not tax non-profits;

Property tax-exemptions to the property owned by churches;

Tax deferral, or forgiveness of taxes (property, state and/or local income, etc.), to lure businesses (from inside or outside the country) to a specific location;

Decision at what rate to tax beer, wine and distilled spirits (and varying rates per quantity of proof);

Decision at what rate to tax tobacco products, with that tax varying depending on whether the product is to be used for cigarettes, pipes, small cigars, large cigars, chewing, snuff or roll your own;

Decision at what rate to tax cigarette papers (rate varies dependent on length) and cigarette tubes (rate varies dependent on length);

Etc., etc.

Tell me the how the above tax decisions are not arbitrary?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Rudy: But anything beyond true costs becomes a pol...

2009-06-29T00:10:34.475-04:00

Rudy:
But anything beyond true costs becomes a policy decision

As I wrote above, the decision to adhere to free market ideology is itself a policy decision. The question is results, not means. Sometimes markets are the best way to get the results you want. I'd say they're usually the best way. But I'm not willing to say they're always the best way, as recent economic events have shown.

Extrapolation of additional "costs" into just about anything is way too easy and being largely subjective, is subject to manipulation for political purposes.

Or you could say that to leave out such costs entirely, even though we know that they exist and are substantial, is manipulation for political purposes. The Bush administration left out the costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan out of the budget because they said they couldn't tell you what they would be. But they sure knew that they would be a lot bigger than zero. To leave the number a zero leaves the economic analysis "thrown out the window" just as much as trying to use guesswork to get an estimate.

Anything other than direct economic cost is subject to huge error and manipulation. There is no way to measure or calculate an appropriate carbon tax.

But that shouldn't excuse us from making our best guesses. Leaving out the numbers just because they're hard to quantify means we won't be getting a result we should have any confidence in. It's like looking for the keys you dropped on the sidewalk at night under the streetlight even though you may not have lost them there; just because that's where you can see doesn't mean that's where it's worth looking.

And if there is "no way to calculate an appropriate carbon tax," then the zero number is just as inappropriate as any other.

Each individual should be a responsible user of resources, but also should be free to determine his own needs, not be strongarmed by government policy.

I'm not saying you can't drive a big car. I'm saying that if you do, you should have to pay more for it because otherwise you're indirectly making me pay for various social ills that I'm not responsible for (e.g. vulnerability to foreign sources and the costs necessary to protect them). Again, it's pricing in externalities. It's not strongarming to have those responsible bear the costs.

To be blithely ignorant of economic consequences for purposes social policy manipulation, which is what this cap and trade bill has clearly done, compounds the vulnerability on the availability of imported oil we need to drive our cars and run our businesses.

The opposite seems to be true to me. We're vulnerable because we drive lousy vehicles. We drive lousy vehicles because the price of gas is too low to matter. When prices went up, people stopped buying such lousy vehicles. If that continued, we'd be less vulnerable. The policy implications seem quite clear to me on this one. It's clear to many conservatives too who would support a higher gas tax if it were offset by lower taxes elsewhere.

DSimon, you're right about true costs, at least to...

2009-06-28T23:01:59.499-04:00

DSimon, you're right about true costs, at least to the degree that the costs really are true costs, and not just an arbitrary tarriff designed to punish certain players for non-economic purposes. That is the basis for using gasoline taxes to pay for roads, for example. But anything beyond true costs becomes a policy decision, like jacking bridge tolls to subsidize bus ridership.

Extrapolation of additional "costs" into just about anything is way too easy and being largely subjective, is subject to manipulation for political purposes.

For example, lets hypothetically say that people who ride bicycles to work in big cities have a certain incidence of accidents involving pedestrians or vehicles. There are true economic costs associated with that, including physical and property damages, legal and medical bills, public safety officer bills, and costs of creating bike lanes on city streets, including an allocation of the medical and pension costs for the employees doing the work. So, under that scenario, if the true costs of that rider were tallied and fully divided among the bike riders, it would likely be uneconomical for someone to consider riding their bike to work.

The same is true when going through such an exercise for oil, using your example. If we start adding entirely hypothetical costs like carbon emmissions, real economic analysis is thrown out the window.

Moreover, in economics, you must always remember the principle of fungibility, which is where the real danger of this carbon tax chatter lies. In a world economy, costs that US companies have that competing companies do not have are all incremental competitive disadvantages. That is indisputably bad for economic growth.

It's also a two-way street. In addition to looking at the costs that anti-oil people want to look at, the same economic logic requires that the analysis crediting back costs avoided by not taxing, such as incremental unemployment costs or lost tax revenue or profits to the economy. Perhaps the biggest one is avoided cost of war.

As you can see, it can get pretty muddy pretty quickly. Anything other than direct economic cost is subject to huge error and manipulation. There is no way to measure or calculate an appropriate carbon tax.

Similarly, you're forgetting derivative logic in your comment that we should be using less oil. To the degree that you're talking about needless and unproductive waste, I agree. Each individual should be a responsible user of resources, but also should be free to determine his own needs, not be strongarmed by government policy. but, to the degree that less oil use means necessary substitution of more expensive alternatives or unavailability of sufficient quantities to grease the wheels of commerce, that is economically harmful.

To be blithely ignorant of economic consequences for purposes social policy manipulation, which is what this cap and trade bill has clearly done, compounds the vulnerability on the availability of imported oil we need to drive our cars and run our businesses.

Rudy: The idea of contrived shortages to force up...

2009-06-28T21:38:05.787-04:00

Rudy:

The idea of contrived shortages to force up prices in order to help price parity is short-sighted. and economically harmful

But the idea of pricing in the true costs of use is not short-sighted but economically efficient. And pollution is not priced into carbon use. Consequently, there is a good conservative argument for a carbon tax, or the equivalent through cap and trade, to adjust for the externalities that are not included in the "market" price.

We should be more self-sufficient also for oil by increasing domestic exploration and production rather than deliberately making ourselves more vulnerable.

We would be far less vulnerable if we just used less of the stuff. We are energy hogs, and it's not just because we drive more; it's because of what we drive. It's also a basic conservative principle that you tax something you want less of. If our gas cost the same as in Europe, perhaps we'd drive cars as efficient as theirs. And people wouldn't have to pay any more to drive around than they do now because they'd be getting better mileage.

Same with energy prices. Yes, perhaps legislation would cause them to go up. But people can do a lot to use less, so they don't wind up paying more. And there would be budget savings from not needing the military to protect energy supplies from abroad, more freedom in foreign policy, plus the environmental benefits. That's a lot to plug into a cost-benefit analysis, but it's arguable that it's a net plus in the long run.

The cheapest barrel of oil is the one you never buy in the first place. And there are many, many arguments for intervening in the market to make the price "artificially" higher so that there are incentives to reduce use and promote alternatives.

Free markets aren't inherently beneficial because they're markets. We like markets generally because they usually are pretty good at getting certain results, such as better quality goods at lower prices, which we consider a good thing. But when a lower price promotes social harm (pollution, dependence on foreign sources which create national security problems, etc.), then we need to look at what kind of results we want and determine the best way of getting there. Markets are means, not ends, and so they're not necessarily the solution to every problem. It depends on the problem you're trying to solve.

Well, it didn't take long, Mike, for your usual sn...

2009-06-28T20:33:33.816-04:00

Well, it didn't take long, Mike, for your usual snark and ridicule to set in. You seem to resort to that whenever you're boxed into a corner and are without coherent arguments. But you did forget to include your usual patter about Lush Rimbaugh and Bill O'Lielly talking points that you're usually reduced to when you're stumped. Very predictible, and oh so lame.

My impression of 'Rudy' is someone who thought edu...

2009-06-28T20:21:35.248-04:00

My impression of 'Rudy' is someone who thought education and learning was difficult, so he gave up on it.

What was it Danny Quayle said? Oh, now I remember.

"What a terrible thing to have lost one's mind. Or not to have a mind at all. How true that is."

Yes, how true that is.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Harper, you're right that solar power has high pot...

2009-06-28T20:13:21.109-04:00

Harper, you're right that solar power has high potential for filling more of our energy requirements over time. As has been amply discussed here and elsewhere, it has some severe cost and logistical limitations.

Conservatives, myself included, would be the first to say that they would embrace any new energy technology that is superior to curerent ones. That defines progress. The problem is that solar technology is not yet superior, and has some important barriers limitations to becoming so.

The technology will scale rapidly once buyers and sellers agree that it should be a higher proportion of the total. So, it must hit grid parity naturally. If government tries to force that prematurely, it risks locking buyers into inferior technology, making a greater hurdle for market share gains by improved technology later.

The idea of contrived shortages to force up prices in order to help price parity is short-sighted. and economically harmful.

You also confuse solar as a possible substitute for oil. It is not. It is potentailly a substitute mostly for coal or natural gas for electricity generation. We are already self-sufficient and invulnerable to OPEC for electricity generation.

We should be more self-sufficient also for oil by increasing domestic exploration and production rather than deliberately making ourselves more vulnerable.

Mike, you miss the point. You are assuming CO2 is...

2009-06-28T19:55:29.063-04:00

Mike, you miss the point. You are assuming CO2 is harmful. Contrary to what politicians eager for a big new tax revenue source may say, that is by no means a given, and it is most definitively not settled science.

We absolutely should be good stewards of the earth. That does not mean not using the resources that God gave us, or placing humankind in lower priority just to assuage some people's fears of doom.

And doing something that is difficult badly is far worse than not doing it at all.

Rudy said... CO2 is far more pervasive and it is f...

2009-06-28T19:39:13.216-04:00

Rudy said...
CO2 is far more pervasive and it is far from clear that we should be spending massive amounts of money trying to mitigate its creation.

"Far from clear" to whom that we should not try to preserve and protect the earth?

Notice I didn't say Gaia. I said 'earth', as in the only planet that we know of right now that can support human life.

Oh, and didn't God tell Adam to 'dress and keep the Earth' (Genesis 2:15), not to rape, pillage and plunder it?

By the way, there are many things in life that are difficult. Does that mean you advise everyone to just skip trying to accomplish the difficult things because they ARE difficult? Maybe education and learning are two of those things that are difficult to some? Should we give them up?

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Solar energy isn't it? It's good enough to power ...

2009-06-28T19:31:24.638-04:00

Solar energy isn't it?

It's good enough to power the whole fucking universe! We just haven't figured out how to use it yet. Conservatives are just a bunch of nay sayers. Give it time and scale up the technology and the cost will continue to go down. Sometime in the next decade or possibly sooner if OPEC extorts us before then, we are going to hit price parity.

Peter, SO2 is a harmful pollutant whose eliminatio...

2009-06-28T19:07:00.773-04:00

Peter, SO2 is a harmful pollutant whose elimination is fairly easily accomplished with scrubbers, with a definable cost that can be managed fairly efficiently via a cap-and-trade type scheme.

CO2 is far more pervasive and it is far from clear that we should be spending massive amounts of money trying to mitigate its creation. It is an inert gas, is in very low concentrations in the atmosphere, and has at best a tenuous link to global warming. The scientific evidence of CO2's harm is inceasingly questionable, as it is wholly dependent on computer modeling that has been notoriously inaccurate so far. CO2 is arguably more beneficial than harmful, as it is productively absorbed by the environment.

It is easy to measure SO2 creation and remediation. There is ample evidence that high concentrations of SO2 contribute to acid rain, but not at any cost. Hence, the viability of a trading market. It is also a small, small fraction of the size of a CO2 market, and not as easily gamed as a CO2 market would be.
We live in a CO2 emissions-dependent society, and implementing cap-and-trade for it would necessarily cause net-negative economic consequences for imperceptible benefit.

If it were truly necessary to limit CO2 emissions, cap-and-trade is potentially a decent mechanism, as it has been for SO2. But that is only true if the benefits of reduction exceed the cost and the system is structured to fairly treat all market paricipants.

The evidence is increasingly that it would be wholly ineffective and unnecessary environmentally and extremely costly economically.

@Peter: I think the difference comes down to SO2 a...

2009-06-28T17:59:44.910-04:00

@Peter: I think the difference comes down to SO2 and CO2 as well as the timing of the bill. SO2 is involved in health concerns and noticeable environmental effects (acid rain for example) which are easier to show than the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. When the timing of this bill is introduced in a time of economic trouble, bills like these are highly scrutinized (even more than usual).

The CO2 emission debate is one of those highly controversial subjects where the effects are not completely understood or predictable (it's a dynamic subject when in combination with climate change).

Over all, it depends who you ask. Some will say that it will be overly expensive. Non-partisan/independent groups will say it is a relatively small cost.

If you ask me, the bill has been getting watered down and doesn't focus the country in the right direction. This bill is basically affirmative action for energy where the minority is alternative energy.

@ John do you REALLY think the media wants Republ...

2009-06-28T17:44:14.132-04:00

@ John

do you REALLY think the media wants Republicans to do well??

Of course not Aren't Fox News,the Wall Street journal,the New york Post,etc.backing Obama and the Democratic Party? And isn't talk radio (Limbaugh,Savage,etc.) doing the same?

The alternate universe you inhabit must be some place!

I haven't heard anyone explain clearly, without re...

2009-06-28T17:19:50.732-04:00

I haven't heard anyone explain clearly, without resorting to talking points or leaning on broad assumptions about government regulatory behavior in general, why cap-and-trade has been perfectly effective at reducing SO2 but will be a failure at best and an economic catastrophe at worst when applied to CO2. And how is the Federal program different than the regional programs and plans currently in place? The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord, the Western Climate Initiative and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative all include some variation on cap-and-trade. Those programs cover just about every part of the country outside of the Deep South, and if those states don't think that a cap-and-trade system will be a burden on industry and energy consumers, then why should we assume that a Federal program would be that much more disastrous?